I have made a post like this one but with less The National Bolshiviks, Third Positionists and Strasserites for the most part seem to have disappeared. As you know I do not post on this forum much, and I think I will stay in the "reactionary" section in the opposing views. I dislike being called a reactionary, the reactionary capitalistist "nationalists" sold out my nation. Many on the left call nationalism reactionary. In the past cosmopolitanism was not the threat it is towards the existence of different nations and the right for a nation to preserve or better yet strengthen its culture and people. I have yet to hear a definition of what is "reactionary" and what is "revolutionary". I would like for these ideas to be criticised. Perhaps some of my opinions may change. Some of my ideas that can be called "reactionary":

Anti-communism: I am an anti-communist, a mixed/socialist economy with some "capitalist" elements will be more productive and better for the people. Marx made many good points, but I do not see communism ever being reached be it world communism or even communism in one country. I agree with some of his theories on history. I do not consider what he called "slave society" a slave society for the most part, but slavery did exist. I can be called "reactionary" in that respect as this pre-capitalist and pre-feudalist proto-fascist society is superior to a capitalist(be it libertarian or authoritarian) or a social-democratic society. The problem with these societies is slavery exists. Slavery is degenerate, decent people do not want slaves. Decent people want a society in which there is unity and brotherhood. I want meritocracy, not slavery.

Social-conservatism: I am ok with some contraceptives, abortion(in some cases) and euthanasia. This is mostly for eugenics purposes. I am about as socially-conservative as Hitler. Mussolini was less socially conservative, he even had many mistresses. Does anyone on this forum even view a socially liberal society as reasonable? Look at all the drugs, perverse sex and degeneracy in this modern society. The USSR was socially conservative, even Lenin looked down on free love. Most Bolsheviks views homosexuality as a bourgeois perversion. It is not bourgeois as it infests all social classes but it is a perversion. Take nations that are now only communist in name are modern examples of socially conservative nations. Lukashenko's Belarus is reasonably socially-conservative and that nation is not socialist I do not know what is. One could say this is because people are a product of their time but communists outside the west usually advocate social-conservatism.

Racialism: It concerns me that the white race is becoming extinct. I support ethnic nationalism for my nation but I think extreme racism is foolish and harmful. Apartheid was by no means extreme racism like liberals make it out to be. Apartheid means apartness, but the white capitalists did not seem to mind using blacks for cheap labour. I think apartheid was wrong, it was not implemented properly. I would have made it so that there would have made it illegal for whites to employ blacks so the different races can be truly separate. Blacks(be they Zula, Khosa ect) would be better off being without white imperialists and whites would be better off in a homogeneous socialist/mixed-economy society. Many nations are multiracial and it would cause more harm then good trying to ethnically cleans racial minorities from them. Different groups can separate themselves voluntarily. Many American National Socialists want to forcible remove all non-whites from the USA be it by force or voluntarily. I have talked to Fascists that reject this idea as the USA is stuck being multiracial.

Antisemitism: Different from racism. I am antisemetic, but I do not want to "exterminate" them. They have their place in nature. I just want them to be separate from gentiles. I do not consider the Zionist entity a legitimate state but if they want part of Palestine so be it. I do not know where else they can be sent. I would recomend

Authoritarianism: Pure communism has only ever existed one a small scale and these societies are libertarian.Lenin was authoritarian but not totalitarian like Stalin, Mao ect were. Many communists believed in an authoritarian or even totalitarian state that exists to destroy movements that the state considers "counter-revolutionary" and discipline the people. The state is supposed to slowly wither away as the society becomes closer to reaching communism. By using this method supposedly one day a pure communist society will be reached. I can see people being indoctrinated with the values of the state and eventually the state can even be psudo-libertarian but the society will still function like a totalitarian one.

Militarism: Militarism strengthens a nation. There is a fine line between militarism and what is needed to "protect" a nation. Militarism is similar to imperialism. Again this is a characteristic the USSR and many other communist regimes had. Yes, North Korea is no longer Marxist-Leninist and it is militaristic.

Imperialism: I have mixed feelings on imperialism. I believe in social-Darwinism but I would not like to be the victim of imperialism. War could end up destroying civilisation as well as my nation. Nuclear bombs can be destroy civilisation and kill most if not all humans on the earth, or they can save us from endless war. The Soviet union was imperialist. They claimed to "liberate" other nations but ended up exploiting and murdering millions of people. This is an argument against Stalinism and similar forms of communism.

I would say monarchy and in many cases religion are reactionary. Monarchy can rally the people but I am in favour of the next leader and high ranking politicians being appointed by high ranking party members, this can be called "republican". I am semi-religious(I am into the occult and spiritualism) but for the most part religion is a false dogma that needs to be integrated into science. Atheistic materialism does not explain many things such as electronic voice phenomenon but. religious fundamentalism keeps a society in chains. Look at the Middle ages and Saudi Arabia.

I have read your posts here at SP and on Iron March TotalitarianSocialist and I must say you are a rather interesting character. I am also a socialist with a lot of religious/spiritual tendencies. I am mainly into Odianism and Slavianism, as well as many eastern Indian religions, especially Buddhism. Perhaps we can have some good dialogue.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:I have made a post like this one but with less The National Bolshiviks, Third Positionists and Strasserites for the most part seem to have disappeared. As you know I do not post on this forum much, and I think I will stay in the "reactionary" section in the opposing views. I dislike being called a reactionary, the reactionary capitalistist "nationalists" sold out my nation. Many on the left call nationalism reactionary. In the past cosmopolitanism was not the threat it is towards the existence of different nations and the right for a nation to preserve or better yet strengthen its culture and people. I have yet to hear a definition of what is "reactionary" and what is "revolutionary". I would like for these ideas to be criticised. Perhaps some of my opinions may change. Some of my ideas that can be called "reactionary":

Well, not all of them. I did go away for some time, but I came back. I would implore you to stick around as well, despite some differences with the RSF, I feel more common ground with the socialists here than I do fascists and third positionists. (I consider myself part of fourth political theory if you are familiar).

My definition of reactionary is someone who wishes to maintain the status quo, mainly today that is the capitalist mode of production. A revolutionary is someone who wishes to overthrow the status quo. In my own opinion, even feudalists can be considered revolutionary as they are wanting to implement a different mode of production and a different way to organize society, though we know ourselves feudalism itself is no good and would never get mass support from the people.

Anti-communism: I am an anti-communist, a mixed/socialist economy with some "capitalist" elements will be more productive and better for the people. Marx made many good points, but I do not see communism ever being reached be it world communism or even communism in one country. I agree with some of his theories on history. I do not consider what he called "slave society" a slave society for the most part, but slavery did exist. I can be called "reactionary" in that respect as this pre-capitalist and pre-feudalist proto-fascist society is superior to a capitalist(be it libertarian or authoritarian) or a social-democratic society. The problem with these societies is slavery exists. Slavery is degenerate, decent people do not want slaves. Decent people want a society in which there is unity and brotherhood. I want meritocracy, not slavery.

Why do you want any capitalist elements in society? What exactly about private ownership benefits EVERYONE? I could see communism being reached.

As for ancient societies, I agree with you that many held values that were superior to what today are considered bourgeois values, but there is simply no turning back the wheels of history. We have to be realists and accept the fact that material factors do have an impact on society and we need to construct the proper material factors for our own people's cultural revolution.

Social-conservatism: I am ok with some contraceptives, abortion(in some cases) and euthanasia. This is mostly for eugenics purposes. I am about as socially-conservative as Hitler. Mussolini was less socially conservative, he even had many mistresses. Does anyone on this forum even view a socially liberal society as reasonable? Look at all the drugs, perverse sex and degeneracy in this modern society. The USSR was socially conservative, even Lenin looked down on free love. Most Bolsheviks views homosexuality as a bourgeois perversion. It is not bourgeois as it infests all social classes but it is a perversion. Take nations that are now only communist in name are modern examples of socially conservative nations. Lukashenko's Belarus is reasonably socially-conservative and that nation is not socialist I do not know what is. One could say this is because people are a product of their time but communists outside the west usually advocate social-conservatism.

I am also socially conservative, though I believe many modern day perversions will go away once the liberal notion of the "free market" is destroyed and capitalists can stop appealing to our basic, animalistic, sexual instincts. Capitalism is basically the Kali factor of our age, the rich capitalize on all sorts of endless lust and pleasure in order to make profit.

Racialism: It concerns me that the white race is becoming extinct. I support ethnic nationalism for my nation but I think extreme racism is foolish and harmful. Apartheid was by no means extreme racism like liberals make it out to be. Apartheid means apartness, but the white capitalists did not seem to mind using blacks for cheap labour. I think apartheid was wrong, it was not implemented properly. I would have made it so that there would have made it illegal for whites to employ blacks so the different races can be truly separate. Blacks(be they Zula, Khosa ect) would be better off being without white imperialists and whites would be better off in a homogeneous socialist/mixed-economy society. Many nations are multiracial and it would cause more harm then good trying to ethnically cleans racial minorities from them. Different groups can separate themselves voluntarily. Many American National Socialists want to forcible remove all non-whites from the USA be it by force or voluntarily. I have talked to Fascists that reject this idea as the USA is stuck being multiracial.

The decline in numbers the white race is experiencing is directly attributed to capitalism. There is simply no other factor. Our men that are sent over seas to die for money and capital are replaced by migrant labor, which is actively encouraged by capitalists who find it extremely profitable due to the inflation of the labor market it causes.

As for apartheid, I am also opposed to it. I support ethnically homogeneous States who work together in a confederation of sorts. It sort of sounds like what you are describing.

Antisemitism: Different from racism. I am antisemetic, but I do not want to "exterminate" them. They have their place in nature. I just want them to be separate from gentiles. I do not consider the Zionist entity a legitimate state but if they want part of Palestine so be it. I do not know where else they can be sent. I would recomend

"Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste-heap of Europe, for what they were: money Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews...Anti-Semitism is really a hatred of capitalism" - Ulrike Meinhof

Anti-semitism can be traced back to a hatred of capitalism, comrade. I was once anti-semetic too before I realized the error in my train of thought. In a socialist setting Jews should be allowed to be with their own people as much as any other people.

Authoritarianism: Pure communism has only ever existed one a small scale and these societies are libertarian.Lenin was authoritarian but not totalitarian like Stalin, Mao ect were. Many communists believed in an authoritarian or even totalitarian state that exists to destroy movements that the state considers "counter-revolutionary" and discipline the people. The state is supposed to slowly wither away as the society becomes closer to reaching communism. By using this method supposedly one day a pure communist society will be reached. I can see people being indoctrinated with the values of the state and eventually the state can even be psudo-libertarian but the society will still function like a totalitarian one.

I see the need for a party to safeguard the revolution, but that is about it.

Militarism: Militarism strengthens a nation. There is a fine line between militarism and what is needed to "protect" a nation. Militarism is similar to imperialism. Again this is a characteristic the USSR and many other communist regimes had. Yes, North Korea is no longer Marxist-Leninist and it is militaristic.

I do not support militarism, though I see the values that the military of a nation embodies as innately superior values. Service to the people, fighting for the nation and for a higher cause. The military should be an idealized concept, but that can be done without the need for militarism.

Imperialism: I have mixed feelings on imperialism. I believe in social-Darwinism but I would not like to be the victim of imperialism. War could end up destroying civilisation as well as my nation. Nuclear bombs can be destroy civilisation and kill most if not all humans on the earth, or they can save us from endless war. The Soviet union was imperialist. They claimed to "liberate" other nations but ended up exploiting and murdering millions of people. This is an argument against Stalinism and similar forms of communism.

Social Darwinism rests on a naturalistic fallacy. Most social darwinists can only muster up the argument "its nature" to defend their position. You should start thinking consciously as a human being and not parrot social darwinian phrases.

_________________"Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same." ~ Alain de Benoist

"The main enemy is, on the economic level, capitalism and the market society, on the philosophical level, individualism, on the political front, universalism, on the social front the bourgeoisie, and on the geopolitical front, America." ~ Alain de Benoist

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Many on the left call nationalism reactionary.

Some conceptions of nationalism are indeed reactionary. The problem with the contemporary Left is that they're largely unable to distinguish between reactionary and progressive forms of nationalism in the manner which traditional socialists and communists were. Ever since the "social patriotism" fiasco during the First World War, and the subsequent fascist appropriation of the term "nationalism," the Left has been quick to label any group espousing nationalism as reactionary. Couple that with the fact that cosmopolitanism has gained ideological hegemony within radical movements and it makes for a rather irrational environment.

In the past cosmopolitanism was not the threat it is towards the existence of different nations and the right for a nation to preserve or better yet strengthen its culture and people.

No mere theory, be it cosmopolitanism or otherwise, is capable of threatening national autonomy or ethnocultural survival. Only material forces are capable of such levels of destruction. It is capitalism which is responsible for homogenizing and even exterminating certain cultures and peoples, just as it undermines the self-determination of nations.

I have yet to hear a definition of what is "reactionary" and what is "revolutionary".

Reactionaries seek to maintain the status quo or to revert back to some arbitrarily determined 'idyllic past.' Rational justifications for such proposals are seldom offered, and tradition itself is supposed to warrant respect and obedience. Revolutionaries, on the other hand, believe that authority must constantly be challenged and that if the individuals or institutions bestowed with power in society are incapable of justifying it, it must be dismantled. Revolutionaries don't disparage every facet of the past indiscriminately, but neither do we find a reason to emulate the past. Jack London summarized the revolutionary mentality quite sufficiently when he wrote, "The revolutionist. . . believes not that what ought to be, is, but what is, is, and that it may not be what it ought to be at all" [London, Jack. Revolution and Other Essays, p. 37.].

Anti-communism: I am an anti-communist, a mixed/socialist economy with some "capitalist" elements will be more productive and better for the people.

What makes you think that retaining aspects of capitalism would be "better" for people? "Better" is a value laden term, and, from the perspective of revolutionary socialists (and any thinking person, for that matter), what's better for capital is not what's better for labor. If socialism is incapable of adequately functioning without overcoming the exploitative elements of capitalism, it simply doesn't deserve to be implemented. (Fortunately, there is no theoretical or empirical reason to believe such is the case.) And precisely what "elements" of capitalism would you be in favor of preserving, anyway?

Marx made many good points, but I do not see communism ever being reached be it world communism or even communism in one country.

Apparently you haven't been monitoring the trajectory of technological innovations over the past several decades. Every year industry is becoming more capital intensive, which, while absolutely disastrous for capitalism in the long-term, provides immense emancipatory potential for the working class. At some point in the future, communism—i.e., consumption on the basis of need and entirely voluntary labor—will be technologically viable and eminently practical. Categorically stating that communism will 'never be reached' is sheer nonsense.

I can be called "reactionary" in that respect as this pre-capitalist and pre-feudalist proto-fascist society is superior to a capitalist(be it libertarian or authoritarian) or a social-democratic society.

I presume that this "proto-fascist," pre-capitalist society you find so admirable is ancient Sparta. How very Hitleresque.

I want meritocracy, not slavery.

If you're serious about desiring a meritocratic order, you necessarily have to be in favor of a classlessness (since only under conditions of egalitarianism can innate abilities express themselves undistorted by social class.) So, are you?

I am ok with some contraceptives, abortion(in some cases) and euthanasia. This is mostly for eugenics purposes.

You don't believe that unplanned pregnancies should be allowed to be terminated? How do you justify such a view?

As for eugenics, I'll simply repeat what I wrote on the issue elsewhere: many of the traits scientists once took for granted as being hereditary have been shown to be either entirely environmentally determined or at least epigenetic in recent decades. Right-wing eugenicists in the past ignored what I call 'Kropotkin's Proviso,' which basically means that they disregarded the immense effects socioeconomic factors have in influencing behavior and intelligence. In my opinion, negative eugenic policies are indefensible, and positive eugenic approaches are antiquated. The future of human biological enhancement lies in gene therapy and pharmacological treatments.

Does anyone on this forum even view a socially liberal society as reasonable? Look at all the drugs, perverse sex and degeneracy in this modern society.

I believe that unless an individual's choices can be proven to negatively affect society in some meaningful way, they should not be legislated against. Drunk driving puts the lives of innocent people at risk, ergo, laws exist criminalizing the act. The same should be applied to driving while under the influence of recreational drugs, and so forth. Consensual "perverse sex" affects no one but the parties involved in the act.

Most Bolsheviks views homosexuality as a bourgeois perversion. It is not bourgeois as it infests all social classes but it is a perversion.

And the Bolsheviks were unquestionably wrong on the issue of homosexuality. Criminalizing something which individuals have no control over and which is utterly benign (sexual identity) is irrational and oppressive.

I think apartheid was wrong, it was not implemented properly.

It shouldn't have been implemented at all. No tribe of Africans requested European settlers to move to their continent, so the Boers and British had no right to be there in the first place. I don't care if the land was "relatively vacant" as apologists for apartheid often argue, the Europeans clearly went to South Africa to exploit the region's resources and peoples.

I am antisemetic, but I do not want to "exterminate" them.

How merciful of you.

I just want them to be separate from gentiles.

Why?

I do not consider the Zionist entity a legitimate state but if they want part of Palestine so be it. I do not know where else they can be sent.

Israel is a completely illegitimate state, and the Israelis have no interest in becoming "part of Palestine." They desire the annihilation of the Palestinian people, which any consistent nationalist would oppose. As for where else they can live, I'm sure the Israelis would be permitted to establish an autonomous republic somewhere in Europe, if they so desired.

There is a fine line between militarism and what is needed to "protect" a nation.

No, there isn't. Militarism is the superfluous inflation of the size of the military and the cultural celebration of military values. It is irrational and unnecessary in virtually every respect.

I believe in social-Darwinism but I would not like to be the victim of imperialism.

If you seriously believe in social Darwinism, your comprehension of evolutionary biology is sorely lacking. As Peter Kropotkin brilliantly demonstrated in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, nature is characterized just as much by cooperation as it is by competition. For human beings to choose to exclusively emulate nature's competitive elements would be completely arbitrary and, frankly, disastrous. (Alfie Kohn explains how competition generally results in suboptimal outcomes in No Contest: The Case Against Competition, which I highly recommend).

War could end up destroying civilisation as well as my nation. Nuclear bombs can be destroy civilisation and kill most if not all humans on the earth

Indeed, which is exactly why imperialism must be opposed at all costs.

I am in favour of the next leader and high ranking politicians being appointed by high ranking party members, this can be called "republican".

A sure recipe for abuses of authority, mismanagement, and nepotism. One needn't look any further than contemporary China for myriad examples.

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."—J. B. S. Haldane

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."—Mikhail Bakunin

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:As you know I do not post on this forum much, and I think I will stay in the "reactionary" section in the opposing views. I dislike being called a reactionary, the reactionary capitalistist "nationalists" sold out my nation.

You belong in OV because your views are profoundly reactionary. Did you even bother to consult our FAQ? Your nationalism is anathema to our own, and your "socialism" is a silly banality of the Third Position.

Many on the left call nationalism reactionary. In the past cosmopolitanism was not the threat it is towards the existence of different nations and the right for a nation to preserve or better yet strengthen its culture and people.

The marginal positions of most contemporary leftists are of no importance. Cosmopolitan delusions will never gain political significance, and revolution will not erase national identity. It is not cosmopolitanism in an of itself that poses a threat, but the globalized extent of capitalist exploitation, which gradually imposes economic homogenization upon states and thus impacts cultural distinctions.

I have yet to hear a definition of what is "reactionary" and what is "revolutionary".

a mixed/socialist economy with some "capitalist" elements will be more productive and better for the people.

On what grounds do you make this assertion? Retaining capitalist class relations is unjust and economically harmful. It would forever seek to obstruct the expansion of general social welfare and extend exploitation. "Mixed" economies are precarious and unstable, always subject to reduction in services and "waves" of privatization during both periods of unrest and prosperity, as is evidenced by neoliberal reforms in the 1970s and 80s and current austerity initiatives. Capitalist welfare states offer basic social provisions that any civilized society would take for granted at the cost of further entrenching bourgeois hegemony and thus continuing the immiseration of the proletariat.

Marx made many good points, but I do not see communism ever being reached be it world communism or even communism in one country. I agree with some of his theories on history. I do not consider what he called "slave society" a slave society for the most part, but slavery did exist.

What do you mean by this? Do you deny the historical existence of societies whose dominant mode of production was slavery?

I can be called "reactionary" in that respect as this pre-capitalist and pre-feudalist proto-fascist society is superior to a capitalist(be it libertarian or authoritarian) or a social-democratic society. The problem with these societies is slavery exists. Slavery is degenerate, decent people do not want slaves. Decent people want a society in which there is unity and brotherhood.

How were these "proto-fascist" (entirely meaningless application of term) societies superior to capitalism and democracy? The notion of social unity and fraternity under fascism is quite literally a myth. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. This is an observable historical phenomenon. Ideas of national unity served as instruments of the ruling classes to promote false consciousness amongst the exploited masses in order to subdue dissent, evoke sacrifice, and gain obedience.

I want meritocracy, not slavery.

Meritocracy is a vague concept and is not synonymous with justice. On what basis should "merit" be rewarded? In other words, what constitutes merit? Why should this merit, which need not necessarily be earned through effort and sacrifice, effectively exclude others from certain roles and privileges?

I am ok with some contraceptives,

Some contraceptives? Is it not more prudent to utilize all safe and effective methods that reduce unwanted and unplanned pregnancies?

abortion(in some cases)

The same applies to abortion. Burdening society and inflicting potential psychological harm upon the child by allowing for it to develop within an unstable environment (e.g., an orphanage, state foster care, broken home) is simply unwise.

and euthanasia. This is mostly for eugenics purposes.

Involuntary euthanasia is simply untenable in a society that claims to uphold basic human rights. I recognize, of course, that yours would not. Nonetheless, eugenics is largely outdated and, as Peter Kropotkin cautioned long ago, severely misguided. Positive eugenics is acceptable so long as it is democratically enacted, and incentive structures (economic or otherwise) could be established to meet this end. Negative eugenics belongs in the dustbin of history.

Does anyone on this forum even view a socially liberal society as reasonable? Look at all the drugs, perverse sex and degeneracy in this modern society.

Drug abuse and sexual deviancy are not simply the products of "liberalism." This is conservative twaddle, to put it mildly. It is historically inaccurate to assert that modern society is "degenerate" when compared to idealized visions of the past. Feudalism was by no means a saintly order: it was rife with banditry, prostitution, and general disregard for human life. If anything, we are more "civilized" today as a result of liberal values, which emphasize reason (both in ethics and in intellectual pursuits), equality, and the liberty to fulfill ourselves. This tradition, as opposed to classical conservatism, has greatly contributed to the construction of a humane and just framework for understanding social issues, a system that can address social maladies without cloaking them in mysticism.

The USSR was socially conservative, even Lenin looked down on free love. Most Bolsheviks views homosexuality as a bourgeois perversion.

We are not Bolshevik fetishists. No group is entirely above the prejudices of its time. Marx himself espoused various racist views that many of us disagree with.

It is not bourgeois as it infests all social classes but it is a perversion.

In your subjective opinion it is. That is not nearly a sufficient ground to socially prohibit individuals from pursuing the attractions they feel to members of their own sex.

I support ethnic nationalism for my nation but I think extreme racism is foolish and harmful. Apartheid was by no means extreme racism like liberals make it out to be. Apartheid means apartness, but the white capitalists did not seem to mind using blacks for cheap labour. I think apartheid was wrong, it was not implemented properly. I would have made it so that there would have made it illegal for whites to employ blacks so the different races can be truly separate. Blacks(be they Zula, Khosa ect) would be better off being without white imperialists and whites would be better off in a homogeneous socialist/mixed-economy society. Many nations are multiracial and it would cause more harm then good trying to ethnically cleans racial minorities from them. Different groups can separate themselves voluntarily. Many American National Socialists want to forcible remove all non-whites from the USA be it by force or voluntarily. I have talked to Fascists that reject this idea as the USA is stuck being multiracial.

Ethnic homogeneity does of course facilitate social cohesion, but the extent is often exaggerated by reactionaries. Polycutural structures, wherein individuals identify with overlapping cultures, are a viable alternative to both cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism, and there is no legitimate basis for ethnic discrimination within a social formation.

Different from racism. I am antisemetic, but I do not want to "exterminate" them. They have their place in nature. I just want them to be separate from gentiles.

Antisemitism is irrational and unfounded, and considering the fact that most Jews are Caucasians, I see no reason why they should not be capable of assimilating into gentile society.

Militarism: Militarism strengthens a nation.

Wars also weaken it.

There is a fine line between militarism and what is needed to "protect" a nation. Militarism is similar to imperialism.

Your statements seem contradictory. Are you supporting or denouncing militarism?

Again this is a characteristic the USSR and many other communist regimes had.

The USSR was not imperialistic. It did maintain a large geopolitical sphere of influence, but it was not an actively imperialist state.

Yes, North Korea is no longer Marxist-Leninist and it is militaristic.

North Korea is not worthy of admiration.

Lenin was authoritarian but not totalitarian like Stalin, Mao ect were. Many communists believed in an authoritarian or even totalitarian state that exists to destroy movements that the state considers "counter-revolutionary" and discipline the people.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were ideologically committed to democracy. His writings and the fact that the Bolsheviks were part of a political organization named the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party make it abundantly clear that the Bolsheviks considered themselves democrats. It is, of course, true that the socialist states were highly authoritarian as a result of both initial organizational flaws and various real pressures (such as a hostile international climate), but totalitarianism is not a theoretical component of Marxist-Leninism. It should be remembered that Khrushchev criticized Stalin for his abuses of power and personality cult, and initiated what became known as the "Khrushchev Thaw." Of course, the fact that Khrushchev believed in the possibility of peaceful coexistence with capitalist states is arguably revisionist, but that is neither here nor there.

Imperialism: I have mixed feelings on imperialism. I believe in social-Darwinism but I would not like to be the victim of imperialism. War could end up destroying civilisation as well as my nation. Nuclear bombs can be destroy civilisation and kill most if not all humans on the earth, or they can save us from endless war. The Soviet union was imperialist. They claimed to "liberate" other nations but ended up exploiting and murdering millions of people. This is an argument against Stalinism and similar forms of communism.

Imperialism is absolutely destructive, and it is difficult to reconcile with socialism. How does one justify exploitation abroad whilst condemning it domestically? The same argument applies to both scenarios.

"No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations."—Engels

_________________"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common."Karl Marx

I would have replied sooner but I have been busy lately. Another problem I mys say I have with this forum is people seem to blame everyting on capitalism when capitalism is mearly one of the many problems. My hatred of social-democracy almost equals my hated of capitalism. My hated of internationalism equals my hated of capitalism, both need to exist. One can have nationalism without (at least some) socialism. I also reject Marxism entirely. I read some Marx, Lenin ect mostly out of interest. I have seen few here that do the same, and they all seem to have left.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I have read your posts here at SP and on Iron March TotalitarianSocialist and I must say you are a rather interesting character. I am also a socialist with a lot of religious/spiritual tendencies. I am mainly into Odianism and Slavianism, as well as many eastern Indian religions, especially Buddhism. Perhaps we can have some good dialogue.

We have a fair amount in common.

My definition of reactionary is someone who wishes to maintain the status quo, mainly today that is the capitalist mode of production. A revolutionary is someone who wishes to overthrow the status quo. In my own opinion, even feudalists can be considered revolutionary as they are wanting to implement a different mode of production and a different way to organize society, though we know ourselves feudalism itself is no good and would never get mass support from the people.

I agree. Many use reactionry to describe people they disagree with. Liberal-communists/rev-lefters are definatly reactionry. If they implement their policies humanity will return to the stone age. Pol Pot can also be called reactionry. He wanted to return to primitive agarian communism.

Why do you want any capitalist elements in society? What exactly about private ownership benefits EVERYONE? I could see communism being reached.

I am always in favour of some people being paid more. The harder someone works the more money he/she deserves. I want a productive society in which people work hard. I can tolerate some private ownership but over time it can be nationalised. This is not pure communism. Capitalism genrally refers to private ownership of the means of production and socialism refers to the means of production belonging to the people.

For now I support petite-bourgeious buisness. Socialists should support the petite-bourgeious. The petite-bourgeious are needed in order to liberate the middle and working-class from the chains of capitalism. The working and middle-classes should boycott the bourgeious capitalist buisnesses that exploit the planet, nature, humanity and the planet. I am in favour of class conflict against the bourgeious, not the proletariat against the petite-bourgeious. In the future nationalised big buisness can have a monopoly. Some of the bourgeious can keep their wealth for now but I think that when an individual dies most if not all of his/her wealth should be passed onto the state/community, not onto his/her relatives.

As for ancient societies, I agree with you that many held values that were superior to what today are considered bourgeois values, but there is simply no turning back the wheels of history. We have to be realists and accept the fact that material factors do have an impact on society and we need to construct the proper material factors for our own people's cultural revolution.

Yes. As Mussolini said "History does not travel backwards". Many communists like Lenin cry "fascism is capitalism in decay" but it was originally quite a left-wing movement. It moved to the right in order to gain support in italy. To think of it every Fascist movement has moved to the right. The kulturkampf/revolution from above needs to orchistrated onces the revolutionry regime has been established.

I am also socially conservative, though I believe many modern day perversions will go away once the liberal notion of the "free market" is destroyed and capitalists can stop appealing to our basic, animalistic, sexual instincts. Capitalism is basically the Kali factor of our age, the rich capitalize on all sorts of endless lust and pleasure in order to make profit.

I agree. Most modern hippie liberals are capitalists or are indifferent on economics. The liberal-capitalists and liberal-communists march hand in hand. Look at the liberal international American media. It pumps out hedonistic liberal filth as well as supercapitalism. Capitalism is even the bastard child of liberalism. Classical liberalism always supported capitalism, not socialism.

The decline in numbers the white race is experiencing is directly attributed to capitalism. There is simply no other factor. Our men that are sent over seas to die for money and capital are replaced by migrant labor, which is actively encouraged by capitalists who find it extremely profitable due to the inflation of the labor market it causes.

True. White people also have less children for economic reasons.European nations are growing in terms of population due to immigration and the fact immigrants have more children. The white capitalists are glad to welcome these people for cheap labour so they can make some money. They don't look out for their nation. Many people absolutely hate immigrants, I can't blame them. The immigrants do leave their poor countries to get a better life for themselves but they are greedy ingrates and want even more from the native people. They choose to commit far more crime per-capita and the traitors turn a blind eye and blame the "white racist oppresors". It is the immigrants that are the real racists. Still, they are mearly a tool for the global elite. Black people, Muslims and most other non-whites have high birthrates. They do this because they care about their community far more then they do profit. China and India have low birthrates but that is because they are overpopulated and are being responsible. I can see India and China traveling down this road within a few decades. Japan has a low birthrate but that country is overpopulated and the Japanese do not bring in many immigrants for cheap labour. I can however see them doing so in the future.

"Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste-heap of Europe, for what they were: money Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews...Anti-Semitism is really a hatred of capitalism" - Ulrike Meinhof

Anti-semitism can be traced back to a hatred of capitalism, comrade. I was once anti-semetic too before I realized the error in my train of thought. In a socialist setting Jews should be allowed to be with their own people as much as any other people.

On avarage (Ashkenazi)Jews do make much more money per-capita then gentiles. With other Jews they are not that wealthy. A dispreportionate amount of Jews are present in liberal-socialist movements. Liberal-socialists are quick to attack white gentiles for being welthy when Ashkenazi Jews are much more wealthy. Modern liberalism is an ideaology of complete hypocracy.

Social Darwinism rests on a naturalistic fallacy. Most social darwinists can only muster up the argument "its nature" to defend their position. You should start thinking consciously as a human being and not parrot social darwinian phrases.

I do admit that some social Darwinists are foolish. They crusade for the "free-market" when it would be more beneficial for people to be united. I would recomend steralizing defective and idiotic people. I am in favour of a selevtive populism. The folk are being exploited by the rich as well as being exploited by the degenerate people at the bottom of the society.

Celtiberian wrote:No mere theory, be it cosmopolitanism or otherwise, is capable of threatening national autonomy or ethnocultural survival. Only material forces are capable of such levels of destruction. It is capitalism which is responsible for homogenizing and even exterminating certain cultures and peoples, just as it undermines the self-determination of nations.

International socialism can do the same thing. The liberal international socialists support immigration and anti-white(I do not use the term reverse racism) racism. Non-whites vote to the left because they new left gives them special rights and money. 93% of Muslims voted for that foul creature Hollande. Cosmopolitians socialist ot capitalist have a great deal of political power. But these people are not revolutionries, they are modern liberals. A true revolution can only happen if it is backed by nationalism. Nationalism and socialism go hand in hand. One can't really have one without the other.

Reactionaries seek to maintain the status quo or to revert back to some arbitrarily determined 'idyllic past.' Rational justifications for such proposals are seldom offered, and tradition itself is supposed to warrant respect and obedience. Revolutionaries, on the other hand, believe that authority must constantly be challenged and that if the individuals or institutions bestowed with power in society are incapable of justifying it, it must be dismantled. Revolutionaries don't disparage every facet of the past indiscriminately, but neither do we find a reason to emulate the past. Jack London summarized the revolutionary mentality quite sufficiently when he wrote, "The revolutionist. . . believes not that what ought to be, is, but what is, is, and that it may not be what it ought to be at all" [London, Jack. Revolution and Other Essays, p. 37.].

There has never been a past as great as the future I invision. I just acknoledge the past is better then this degenerate modern world. Reactionaries lack idealism. London was a Marxist or at least flirted with it. He may have even wrote the book "Might is right", if he did he definaly had fascistic beliefs. I am by no means assassinating his characher, I like the man. I am just saying if he is a revolutionary then I am as well.

What makes you think that retaining aspects of capitalism would be "better" for people? "Better" is a value laden term, and, from the perspective of revolutionary socialists (and any thinking person, for that matter), what's better for capital is not what's better for labor. If socialism is incapable of adequately functioning without overcoming the exploitative elements of capitalism, it simply doesn't deserve to be implemented. (Fortunately, there is no theoretical or empirical reason to believe such is the case.) And precisely what "elements" of capitalism would you be in favor of preserving, anyway?

In this post I replied to Pantheon Rising on what elements of "capitalism" I want to preserve.

Apparently you haven't been monitoring the trajectory of technological innovations over the past several decades. Every year industry is becoming more capital intensive, which, while absolutely disastrous for capitalism in the long-term, provides immense emancipatory potential for the working class. At some point in the future, communism—i.e., consumption on the basis of need and entirely voluntary labor—will be technologically viable and eminently practical. Categorically stating that communism will 'never be reached' is sheer nonsense.

If it is ever reached who knows how long it will take. If it is ever reached it should be at a really slow pace. When it is done at a fast pace it just manages to kill people and ruin nations.

If you're serious about desiring a meritocratic order, you necessarily have to be in favor of a classlessness (since only under conditions of egalitarianism can innate abilities express themselves undistorted by social class.) So, are you?

I favour Völkisch equality.I want to the abolishing the concept known as class. This society wont be "egalitarian". A capitalism system judges people on their wealth not on their quality as an individual. People use the term "worth" to describe how much material wealth an individual has. I am not worth less then degenerate drug taking millionaire celebrities. This puts an overpaid idiotic sportstar or celebrity above a hard working individual.

You don't believe that unplanned pregnancies should be allowed to be terminated? How do you justify such a view?

People should be responsible and not have unplanned pregnancies. I do believe "life" begings at contreception but the life is a primative creature made out of a few cells. As an antimaterialist I do think it has a soul. Abortion is not murder, but it is relativly close. If one reads about how abortions are preformed and how cruel and painful it must be for the fetus it is definatly not a humane process. I have also read abortion can cause women of having a higher change of getting breast cancer. I am however not one of these pro-lifers which cry about abortion. There are far bigger problems.

As for eugenics, I'll simply repeat what I wrote on the issue elsewhere: many of the traits scientists once took for granted as being hereditary have been shown to be either entirely environmentally determined or at least epigenetic in recent decades. Right-wing eugenicists in the past ignored what I call 'Kropotkin's Proviso,' which basically means that they disregarded the immense effects socioeconomic factors have in influencing behavior and intelligence. In my opinion, negative eugenic policies are indefensible, and positive eugenic approaches are antiquated. The future of human biological enhancement lies in gene therapy and pharmacological treatments.

I disagree with that view of traits. I follow the Cesare Lombroso's ideas on eugenics and social-Darwinism. Enviromental factors do play some role but on avarage people are how they are due to their choices and their nature.

I believe that unless an individual's choices can be proven to negatively affect society in some meaningful way, they should not be legislated against. Drunk driving puts the lives of innocent people at risk, ergo, laws exist criminalizing the act. The same should be applied to driving while under the influence of recreational drugs, and so forth. Consensual "perverse sex" affects no one but the parties involved in the act.

Perverse sex spreads desiseas. AIDS is a gay disease, this is a politically inncorect fact. My theory on how it started was this one madman in Africa was having sex with monkeys and then he spead it to some of his partners. AID's affects gays far more per-capita. Gays have far more sexual partners. It is not even what they do in their private life. They have a degenerate "culture", have disgusting parades and they want tp adopt children which they will indoctrinate with their hedonistic liberal views. Gays also tend to be pedophiles and serial killers more. Gays have a form of psudo-"nationalism" called "queer "nationalism"", their loyaly it to gays over seas not to their countrymen.

And the Bolsheviks were unquestionably wrong on the issue of homosexuality. Criminalizing something which individuals have no control over and which is utterly benign (sexual identity) is irrational and oppressive.

People do have control over it. Humans are more then hedonistic animals Most gays are not "naturally" homosexual. Some people are but they are a minority. Even natural homosexuals should not behave like hedonistic animals and have some self control. More and more people are becoming gay by the day, it is trendy and people like to experiment. Women/girls experiment with it a great deal and for some reason many sick men like watching.

Why?

They are a different nation and an alien people. Different peoples belong in their own respective nations. I do not wish the Jews on any nation.

Israel is a completely illegitimate state, and the Israelis have no interest in becoming "part of Palestine." They desire the annihilation of the Palestinian people, which any consistent nationalist would oppose. As for where else they can live, I'm sure the Israelis would be permitted to establish an autonomous republic somewhere in Europe, if they so desired.

I though that some Jews could be sent to deserted islands where they can live an agarian lifestyle. Mabe learn some work ethic. Some can be either steralised and/will be forcibly interbread with Arabs. I don't care, as long as they just go away. The Jews are not Europeans, never have been and never will be. They do not deserve on inch of European soil.

If you seriously believe in social Darwinism, your comprehension of evolutionary biology is sorely lacking. As Peter Kropotkin brilliantly demonstrated in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, nature is characterized just as much by cooperation as it is by competition. For human beings to choose to exclusively emulate nature's competitive elements would be completely arbitrary and, frankly, disastrous. (Alfie Kohn explains how competition generally results in suboptimal outcomes in No Contest: The Case Against Competition, which I highly recommend).

I agree that cooperation is assential to evolution. I am not a free-marketer. The problem with many socialists are fine with letting the less capable people breed. Many of the egalitarians even support it. They want to bring all of humanity down to the lowest common donominator. You talked about your concept of "negative" eugenics. I disagree, state sponsored eugenics will be more effective then liberal eugenics. I was surprised to see some of the left-communists such as Goldman(Christ I hate that woman) encouraged eugenics. Now the far-left all cry and call eugenics it "psudo-science" and even "racist". I will look into those to book. I have just read about them and they look interesting. I think co-operation "strength through unity" is good but eugenics needs to be enforced.

A sure recipe for abuses of authority, mismanagement, and nepotism. One needn't look any further than contemporary China for myriad examples.

It just needs to be done properly. In politics many psychopaths tend to get to the top. A party needs to be cleansed of its psychopaths and needs to be lead by incoruptable people. Pyschopaths should be barred from entry into positions in government. China is how it is because Maoism failed. The party though "fuck communism, lets be state capitalist with some socialist tendacies".

Rev Scare wrote:You belong in OV because your views are profoundly reactionary. Did you even bother to consult our FAQ? Your nationalism is anathema to our own, and your "socialism" is a silly banality of the Third Position.

I looked at it when I signed up. I thought that Strasserites, Third Positionists, NazBols, left-fascists ect were the right of this forum. I am more concerned with revolutionry socialism then most Third Positionists. I do however view Marxism and capitalism as 2 sides of the same coin. When I take a political spectrum test I always end up quite far on the left because of my economic ideas. But in this modern world non-economic ideas seem to account for one is left or right wing. I call syncric but one can say I am left wing economically and right wing(maybe even far-right) in terms of culture.

The marginal positions of most contemporary leftists are of no importance. Cosmopolitan delusions will never gain political significance, and revolution will not erase national identity. It is not cosmopolitanism in an of itself that poses a threat, but the globalized extent of capitalist exploitation, which gradually imposes economic homogenization upon states and thus impacts cultural distinctions.

Read what I replied to made to Celtiberain in this post.

On what grounds do you make this assertion? Retaining capitalist class relations is unjust and economically harmful. It would forever seek to obstruct the expansion of general social welfare and extend exploitation. "Mixed" economies are precarious and unstable, always subject to reduction in services and "waves" of privatization during both periods of unrest and prosperity, as is evidenced by neoliberal reforms in the 1970s and 80s and current austerity initiatives. Capitalist welfare states offer basic social provisions that any civilized society would take for granted at the cost of further entrenching bourgeois hegemony and thus continuing the immiseration of the proletariat.

European social-democrat economies do very well for themselves. Same is true for fascism(call it state capitalism if you wish). I have never heard of Marxist economic booms. I would recomend reading my reply to Pantheon Rising on the "capitalist" features that can be mantained.

What do you mean by this? Do you deny the historical existence of societies whose dominant mode of production was slavery?

No I don't, but people in these societies were more liberation then they are in this degenrate modern world IMO.

How were these "proto-fascist" (entirely meaningless application of term) societies superior to capitalism and democracy? The notion of social unity and fraternity under fascism is quite literally a myth. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. This is an observable historical phenomenon. Ideas of national unity served as instruments of the ruling classes to promote false consciousness amongst the exploited masses in order to subdue dissent, evoke sacrifice, and gain obedience.

These societies were not weak like democratic and capitalist societes. Mankind grew stronger through conflict. Are you even a nationalist? Nationality is definely more important then class. The reason that social unity is not better then it is under fascism is because of communist agitators. Fascism does colaborate with the ruling class but it is a working and middle class movement. Under fascist dictatorships workers seem to be much better off then they are under communist dictatorships. Hitler and Mussolini did not starve millions of their people like Mao and Stalin did.

Meritocracy is a vague concept and is not synonymous with justice. On what basis should "merit" be rewarded? In other words, what constitutes merit? Why should this merit, which need not necessarily be earned through effort and sacrifice, effectively exclude others from certain roles and privileges?

I would say merit is based on ones work and what one contributes to society.

Some contraceptives? Is it not more prudent to utilize all safe and effective methods that reduce unwanted and unplanned pregnancies?

Not all just most. I am in favour of the birth control pill and steralisation. Condoms are an abnormal abomination.

The same applies to abortion. Burdening society and inflicting potential psychological harm upon the child by allowing for it to develop within an unstable environment (e.g., an orphanage, state foster care, broken home) is simply unwise.

If one has a socialist paradise one does not need to worry about unstable enviroments. It is also important to increase the birthrate of Europeans.

Involuntary euthanasia is simply untenable in a society that claims to uphold basic human rights. I recognize, of course, that yours would not. Nonetheless, eugenics is largely outdated and, as Peter Kropotkin cautioned long ago, severely misguided. Positive eugenics is acceptable so long as it is democratically enacted, and incentive structures (economic or otherwise) could be established to meet this end. Negative eugenics belongs in the dustbin of history.

Human rights are feministic ulturism. Like capitalism, liberalism and materialism human rights is a bastard child of the "enlightenment".

Drug abuse and sexual deviancy are not simply the products of "liberalism." This is conservative twaddle, to put it mildly. It is historically inaccurate to assert that modern society is "degenerate" when compared to idealized visions of the past. Feudalism was by no means a saintly order: it was rife with banditry, prostitution, and general disregard for human life. If anything, we are more "civilized" today as a result of liberal values, which emphasize reason (both in ethics and in intellectual pursuits), equality, and the liberty to fulfill ourselves. This tradition, as opposed to classical conservatism, has greatly contributed to the construction of a humane and just framework for understanding social issues, a system that can address social maladies without cloaking them in mysticism.

The past had its flaws but it was not as bad as it is now. Liberal values are not even rational, they claim to be. They put human rights above all else. Traditional values are traditional for a reason. They exist because of evolution.

We are not Bolshevik fetishists. No group is entirely above the prejudices of its time. Marx himself espoused various racist views that many of us disagree with.

I think they all left.

In your subjective opinion it is. That is not nearly a sufficient ground to socially prohibit individuals from pursuing the attractions they feel to members of their own sex.

Look at the reply I have to CeltIberian.

Ethnic homogeneity does of course facilitate social cohesion, but the extent is often exaggerated by reactionaries. Polycutural structures, wherein individuals identify with overlapping cultures, are a viable alternative to both cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism, and there is no legitimate basis for ethnic discrimination within a social formation.

It does more then that. If one studies racial anthropology one would find a heirachy.

Antisemitism is irrational and unfounded, and considering the fact that most Jews are Caucasians, I see no reason why they should not be capable of assimilating into gentile society.

They are technically "Causcasians" but most of them are not Europeans. They have an entirely different racial as well as cultural characher.

Your statements seem contradictory. Are you supporting or denouncing militarism?

It is double edged sword.

The USSR was not imperialistic. It did maintain a large geopolitical sphere of influence, but it was not an actively imperialist state.

It sure oppressed it neighbors and murdered millions of them.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were ideologically committed to democracy. His writings and the fact that the Bolsheviks were part of a political organization named the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party make it abundantly clear that the Bolsheviks considered themselves democrats. It is, of course, true that the socialist states were highly authoritarian as a result of both initial organizational flaws and various real pressures (such as a hostile international climate), but totalitarianism is not a theoretical component of Marxist-Leninism. It should be remembered that Khrushchev criticized Stalin for his abuses of power and personality cult, and initiated what became known as the "Khrushchev Thaw." Of course, the fact that Khrushchev believed in the possibility of peaceful coexistence with capitalist states is arguably revisionist, but that is neither here nor there.

Stalin also claimed to believe in democracy. Democracy as in "rule of the people". In that way I believe in democracy as long as the people have the right ideas. They believed in disiplining the people and indoctrinating them with communism. Then people can have mob rule.

Imperialism is absolutely destructive, and it is difficult to reconcile with socialism. How does one justify exploitation abroad whilst condemning it domestically? The same argument applies to both scenarios.

"No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations."—Engels

Socialism can be for only one nation. I would like for my nation to have access to resources that suround it. Africa is full of ther most abundent natural resources yet the native people never use them.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Another problem I mys say I have with this forum is people seem to blame everyting on capitalism when capitalism is mearly one of the many problems.

Being that this is a socialist forum, it should be obvious why our attention is primarily focused on capitalism and the injustice and immense damage it's responsible for. However, none of us have ever claimed that every observable problem in life is directly attributable to capitalism.

One can have nationalism without (at least some) socialism.

Reactionary "nationalism," certainly. Though it would be riddled with contradictions and, consequently, unsustainable.

I also reject Marxism entirely.

On what basis, pray tell?

We have a fair amount in common.

I truly hope Pantheon Rising finds that disconcerting.

Many use reactionry to describe people they disagree with.

Those who do so are misapplying the term. It has an objective meaning.

Liberal-communists/rev-lefters are definatly reactionry. If they implement their policies humanity will return to the stone age.

In what way would their policy proposals result in humanity 'retuning to the stone age'?

I am always in favour of some people being paid more.

Surely you realize that income differentials precede capitalism, and are therefore irreverent to the question.

The harder someone works the more money he/she deserves.

I agree, but capitalism's remunerative norms are not related to work effort. The market apportions income on the basis of ownership (or lack thereof) of productive assets, luck (in workmates, tools, and the sector of the economy one works in), and one's genetic endowment.

I can tolerate some private ownership but over time it can be nationalised.

Any maintenance of private property is unjustifiable and will inevitably generate class tensions and instability (both political and economic). Those "socialists" who suggest otherwise are historically illiterate and don't possess a firm understanding of socialist theory.

Capitalism genrally refers to private ownership of the means of production and socialism refers to the means of production belonging to the people.

Correct.

The petite-bourgeious are needed in order to liberate the middle and working-class from the chains of capitalism. The working and middle-classes should boycott the bourgeious capitalist buisnesses that exploit the planet, nature, humanity and the planet.

In no way does preserving the petite bourgeoisie "liberate" the working class. Petite bourgeois enterprises are capitalist, and often more oppressive to labor than larger firms—due to the lower rate of profit generally exhibited in small businesses. Moreover, any ethical arguments you could possibly make in defense of the petite bourgeoisie are equally applicable to the bourgeoisie.

I am in favour of class conflict against the bourgeious, not the proletariat against the petite-bourgeious.

Apparently you're unaware of the fact that the petite bourgeoisie are often among the most pugnacious of reactionaries. (It is in their class interest to be, after all.)

Some of the bourgeious can keep their wealth for now but I think that when an individual dies most if not all of his/her wealth should be passed onto the state/community, not onto his/her relatives.

What makes you think that further taxing bourgeois estates would be politically viable? As the saying goes, "he who has the gold makes the rules."

Many communists like Lenin cry "fascism is capitalism in decay" but it was originally quite a left-wing movement.

It wasn't anymore "left-wing" than American progressivism was; which is to say, it wasn't. The early fascists were moderate reformists, many of which (e.g., Mussolini) likely realized that their political programs had no chance at ever being fulfilled. They opportunistically supported a few social democratic proposals in a vain attempt to appeal to the working class.

I concede that fascist ideology was developed independently, but radical social theorists correctly understood that the only reason fascism would gain political power was because the bourgeoisie could no longer rely on liberal democracy to sustain capitalism.

The kulturkampf/revolution from above needs to orchistrated onces the revolutionry regime has been established.

I don't understand why you constantly attach these ludicrous pronouncements to the end of your paragraphs.. Do you not realize that they are question begging? And whenever someone does question them, you invariably ignore them or simply offer further unsubstantiated pronouncements.

The liberal-capitalists and liberal-communists march hand in hand.

Do they? You shouldn't have any difficulty furnishing us with examples, in that case.

The immigrants do leave their poor countries to get a better life for themselves but they are greedy ingrates and want even more from the native people.

That is a completely baseless assertion.

They choose to commit far more crime per-capita and the traitors turn a blind eye and blame the "white racist oppresors".

Crime rates vary depending on the immigrant group. East Asian immigrants, for example, typically have an even lower crime rate than their Caucasian host populations do. As for "white racist oppression," that's obviously nonsense, but many countries have suffered as a result of colonialism and international capitalism, which causes (or at least exacerbates) Third World poverty and, in turn, acts as the major impetus for those peoples to migrate to Western states.

Liberal-socialists are quick to attack white gentiles for being welthy when Ashkenazi Jews are much more wealthy. Modern liberalism is an ideaology of complete hypocracy.

Are you suggesting that these so-called "liberal-socialist" Jews are intentionally focusing on the Caucasian bourgeoisie while absolving Jewish capitalists from any responsibility? Unless you can cite examples, I will take this claim as yet another figment of your overly active imagination.

International socialism can do the same thing.

It depends on how you define internationalism and socialism.

The liberal international socialists support immigration and anti-white(I do not use the term reverse racism) racism.

Cosmopolitan socialists do indeed, but that's due to their inability to understand economics, the national question, or the sociology of revolution. They also erroneously believe that the working class under socialism would democratically decide to maintain a policy of open borders—further highlighting how completely out of touch with reality such people are.

93% of Muslims voted for that foul creature Hollande.

François Hollande is barely a social democrat. The reason immigrants generally vote for ostensibly "left-wing" political parties is because those parties are the ones which most frequently rhetorically defend liberal immigration policies and multiculturalism. However, the mainstream right-wing parties merely claim to oppose immigration (or favor stricter policies thereof) in order to secure votes from the working class; they don't actually intend on doing anything to obstruct the flow of cheap labor for capital. Voting demographics are predicated on rhetoric alone, as the differences between the bourgeois parties are entirely cosmetic.

Cosmopolitians socialist ot capitalist have a great deal of political power.

Where are these 'powerful' cosmopolitan socialist parties? (Only a reactionary could seriously consider the Socialist Party of France, or any other centre-left member of the Socialist International, to be anything other than bourgeois social democratic parties. Legitimate cosmopolitan socialists are simply revolutionaries who happen to believe that cosmopolitan social relations will characterize post-capitalist society.)

A true revolution can only happen if it is backed by nationalism. Nationalism and socialism go hand in hand. One can't really have one without the other.

You most certainly can. The material conditions conducive to national revolutions (e.g., imperialism and cultural suppression) are distinct from those conducive to social revolution (e.g., mass unemployment and escalating income inequality).

There has never been a past as great as the future I invision.

I wouldn't associate the word "great" with the dystopian, authoritarian nightmare you desire.

London was a Marxist or at least flirted with it.

Jack London was undoubtedly a Marxist, in addition to being a leading figure in early American revolutionary socialism—he was a member of both the Socialist Labor Party and the Socialist Party of America, running twice as the Socialist Party candidate for major of Oakland; he also supported the Industrial Workers of the World; wrote various fiction and non-fiction socialist works; and only resigned from the Socialist Party "because of its lack of fire and fight, and its loss of emphasis on the class struggle."

He may have even wrote the book "Might is right", if he did he definaly had fascistic beliefs.

Might is Right was obviously written as a parody of social Darwinist thought, and it's unclear who the author of that work was. As for London, he had espoused social Darwinist views prior to his involvement with socialism, and denounced the theory shortly thereafter. He explained his radical change of perspective by recalling the following transformative experience in his life,

"In short, my joyous individualism was dominated by the orthodox bourgeois ethics. I read the bourgeois papers, listened to the bourgeois preachers, and shouted at the sonorous platitudes of the bourgeois politicians. And I doubt not, if other events had not changed my career, that I should have evolved into a professional strike-breaker, (one of President Eliot's American heroes), and had my head and my earning power irrevocably smashed by a club in the hands of some militant trades-unionist.

Just about this time, returning from a seven months' voyage before the mast, and just turned eighteen, I took it into my head to go tramping. On rods and blind baggages I fought my way from the open West where men bucked big and the job hunted the man, to the congested labor centres of the East, where men were small potatoes and hunted the job for all they were worth. And on this new blond beast adventure I found myself looking upon life from a new and totally different angle. I had dropped down from the proletariat into what sociologists love to call the 'submerged tenth,' and I was startled to discover the way in which that submerged tenth was recruited.

I found there all sorts of men, many of whom had once been as good as myself and just as blond beastly; sailor-men, soldier-men, labor-men, all wrenched and distorted and twisted out of shape by toil and hardship and accident, and cast adrift by their masters like so many old horses. I battered on the drag and slammed back gates with them, or shivered with them in box cars and city parks, listening the while to life-histories which began under auspices as fair as mine, with digestions and bodies equal to and better than mine, and which ended there before my eyes in the shambles at the bottom of the Social Pit.

And as I listened my brain began to work. The woman of the streets and the man of the gutter drew very close to me. I saw the picture of the Social Pit as vividly as though it were a concrete thing, and at the bottom of the Pit I saw them, myself above them, not far, and hanging on to the slippery wall by main strength and sweat. And I confess a terror seized me. What when my strength failed? when I should be unable to work shoulder to shoulder with the strong men who were as yet babes unborn?

". . .. I think it is apparent that my rampant individualism was pretty effectively hammered out of me, and something else as effectively hammered in. But, just as I had been an individualist without knowing it, I was now a Socialist without knowing it, withal, an unscientific one. I had been reborn, but not renamed, and I was running around to find out what manner of thing I was. I ran back to California and opened the books. I do not remember which ones I opened first. It is an unimportant detail anyway. I was already It, whatever It was, and by aid of the books I discovered that It was a Socialist. Since that day I have opened many books, but no economic argument, no lucid demonstration of the logic and inevitableness of Socialism affects me as profoundly and convincingly as I was affected on the day when I first saw the walls of the Social Pit rise around me and felt myself slipping down, down, into the shambles at the bottom."London, Jack. War of the Classes, pp. 272-278.

I am by no means assassinating his characher, I like the man. I am just saying if he is a revolutionary then I am as well.

You're mistaken about the beliefs London espoused. Social Darwinism is fundamentally at odds with revolutionary socialism.

If it is ever reached who knows how long it will take. If it is ever reached it should be at a really slow pace.

The length of time it will take is irrelevant, though it will undoubtedly be a gradual process simply due to the fact that the technological innovations which will render communist labor and consumption norms viable will be developed piecemeal.

I want to the abolishing the concept known as class.

Class cannot be abolished by fiat. So long as social classes objectively exist, so too will the class struggle.

"To err is human." Contraceptives should be accessible and encouraged, but abortions serve a needed function as well.

I do believe "life" begings at contreception but the life is a primative creature made out of a few cells.

Your arbitrary conception of when life begins is immaterial to the discussion. Frankly, I find it hilarious that someone so wedded to the notion of sterilizing and euthanizing people would take such a position on abortion.

If one reads about how abortions are preformed and how cruel and painful it must be for the fetus it is definatly not a humane process.

Legal abortions are performed prior to the development of a fetuses' central nervous system, so no pain is experienced in the process.

I disagree with that view of traits.

Because you're a biological determinist, and therefore haven't any knowledge of the problematic manner by which heredity estimates are calculated or the intricate relationship between genes and environment.

I follow the Cesare Lombroso's ideas on eugenics and social-Darwinism.

Fascinating.. So you believe that criminals can be identified via physical defects and other such nonsense? You might as well be advocating phrenology. I recommend setting aside such antiquated and thoroughly discredited texts and instead consulting the contemporary works on the subject.

Enviromental factors do play some role but on avarage people are how they are due to their choices and their nature.

Spare me the inane hereditarian twaddle.

Perverse sex spreads desiseas.

First of all, what one chooses to classify as 'perverse' is subjective. Secondly, sex spreads diseases only to those who willingly engage in it without taking safety precautions.

AIDS is a gay disease, this is a politically inncorect fact.

I suppose that makes gonorrhea, chlamydia, and virtually every other STD "straight diseases." The origin of AIDS really doesn't matter at this point, nor does it make any sense to assign collective responsibility to the homosexuals community.

My theory on how it started was this one madman in Africa was having sex with monkeys and then he spead it to some of his partners.

Interesting theory..

AID's affects gays far more per-capita.

Shouldn't you be celebrating, then? I thought you considered them perverse degenerates; untermenschen.

It is not even what they do in their private life. They have a degenerate "culture", have disgusting parades

In what way is their subculture encroaching on your life?

and they want tp adopt children which they will indoctrinate with their hedonistic liberal views.

Yet another baseless assertion. The sort of homosexuals who adopt children tend to be far more monogamous and family-oriented than those heavily involved in the promiscuous homosexual subculture.

Gays also tend to be pedophiles and serial killers more.

What is this? An assortment of every homophobic cliché you could conjure up?

Gays have a form of psudo-"nationalism" called "queer "nationalism"", their loyaly it to gays over seas not to their countrymen.

Translation: 'Those traitorous faggots have more loyalty to foreign posteriors than they do to the motherland!'

People do have control over it.

I see. Are you capable of suspending your heterosexuality?

Most gays are not "naturally" homosexual. Some people are but they are a minority.

Where did you acquired this information?

Even natural homosexuals should not behave like hedonistic animals and have some self control.

Sexual constraint is a virtue, yes. But it isn't something which can be achieved by legislative action.

More and more people are becoming gay by the day, it is trendy and people like to experiment.

God help us; it's spreading.. It couldn't possibly be that the demographics haven't altered at all, and it only appears as though they have because society has become more tolerant and LGBT people thus feel more comfortable expressing their sexuality, right?

They are a different nation and an alien people. Different peoples belong in their own respective nations. I do not wish the Jews on any nation.

Many Jews are physically and culturally indistinguishable from European nationalities. Fortunately, most of the world doesn't subscribe to your philosophy of extreme antisemitism, so I doubt there will be a forced expulsion of Jewish people from most countries following the revolution.

Some can be either steralised and/will be forcibly interbread with Arabs.

You are aware of how genocidal this statement is, aren't you? If you wish to continue posting on this forum, I recommend you cease writing such filth.

The Jews are not Europeans, never have been and never will be. They do not deserve on inch of European soil.

That isn't up to you to decide. The European working class will democratically determine that for themselves.

The problem with many socialists are fine with letting the less capable people breed. Many of the egalitarians even support it. They want to bring all of humanity down to the lowest common donominator.

I defy you to show me a single example of a socialist who ever explicitly claimed that they seek to "bring all of humanity down to the lowest common denominator." People who don't accept that differences in innate ability exist obviously aren't concerned with breeding patterns, but that's a separate issue.

There is a close correlation between poverty and population growth. Socialism, however, will elevate the standard of living of the poor and generate classlessness, thereby equalizing fertility rates across the genetic spectrum and mitigating the problem. And, to the extent intelligence (or any other human attribute) is genetically influenced, gene therapies will surely be developed in the coming decades which will provide humanity with the means by which to distribute favorable genetic profiles at will (indeed, some bioethicists are convinced that we will witness this within our own lifetimes.) Your dysgenic alarmism is, quite simply, absurd.

I disagree, state sponsored eugenics will be more effective then liberal eugenics.

With the possible exception of allowing certain exceptionally horrible individuals to be sterilized, citizens would not tolerate state bureaucrats determining who has the right to procreate, I assure you.

I was surprised to see some of the left-communists such as Goldman(Christ I hate that woman) encouraged eugenics.

Let me guess, you hate Emma Goldman solely because she was Jewish?

Most of the traditional Left supported eugenics. In addition to Emma Goldman, other notable socialist and communist advocates of eugenics included Margaret Sanger, Eden and Cedar Paul, J. B. S. Haldane, Peter Kropotkin, H. J. Muller, and Leon Trotsky.

Now the far-left all cry and call eugenics it "psudo-science" and even "racist".

Classical eugenics has been revealed as having been profoundly incorrect about quite a lot, and you would have to be totally ignorant regarding the history of eugenics to deny the existence of racist manifestations of the theory.

It just needs to be done properly. In politics many psychopaths tend to get to the top. A party needs to be cleansed of its psychopaths and needs to be lead by incoruptable people.

Ignoring the indefensible nature of authoritarianism, how do you suppose that an unaccountable political party could ever be led exclusively by "incorruptible people"?

China is how it is because Maoism failed. The party though "fuck communism, lets be state capitalist with some socialist tendacies".

The authoritarian nature of the Chinese state apparatus is what enabled a relatively small number of bureaucrats to turn China into the capitalist cesspool it currently is. The history of 20th century state socialism sufficiently demonstrates why democracy is indispensable to the maintenance of socialism.

I looked at it when I signed up. I thought that Strasserites, Third Positionists, NazBols, left-fascists ect were the right of this forum.

They have always been restricted.

I do however view Marxism and capitalism as 2 sides of the same coin.

Being that Marxism is a philosophical, sociological, and economic method by which to analyze capitalism, it's impossible for them to be "two sides of the same coin."

European social-democrat economies do very well for themselves.

Is that why Europe is currently in the midst of the very same economic crisis the United States is, and has been systematically eliminating its welfare services since the 1990s?

Same is true for fascism(call it state capitalism if you wish).

Italian Fascism lasted all of 23 years, German National Socialism lasted only 12. Their economic growth was predicated on unsustainable military production and redistributing resources from conquered nations to themselves (i.e., imperialism). Hardly impressive accomplishments.

I have never heard of Marxist economic booms.

Once again, Marxism is a method of analysis not a mode of production. With respect to the performance of state socialism, the Soviet Union industrialized at a rate so rapid that it defies historical precedent. In the process, it lifted millions of its citizens out of poverty (economic as well as cultural) and enabled the Soviet Union to become a hegemonic force in international relations.

Mankind grew stronger through conflict.

Conflict produces nothing but barbarism, death, and destruction.

Are you even a nationalist? Nationality is definely more important then class.

Nationalism is worthless as long as the proletariat are reduced to wage slaves.

Fascism does colaborate with the ruling class but it is a working and middle class movement.

It is a movement of the petite bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat, used by the bourgeoisie to protect their class privilege and preserve a moribund capitalism. Leon Trotsky's Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It is an excellent analysis of the ideology, which you should browse through whenever you have an opportunity.

Under fascist dictatorships workers seem to be much better off then they are under communist dictatorships.

Workers unfortunate enough to live within a fascist regime live exactly as they do under liberal democratic capitalism, though with the added "privilege" of possessing no civil liberties whatsoever and being used a cannon fodder in various imperialistic ventures.

Hitler and Mussolini did not starve millions of their people like Mao and Stalin did.

No, Hitler instead oversaw the murder millions of "undesirables" and started a pointless war which claimed the lives for further millions.

I am in favour of the birth control pill and steralisation. Condoms are an abnormal abomination.

Condoms are an "abnormal abomination," but sterilization is perfectly reasonable in your opinion? I would appreciate if you could explain exactly how it is that you arrived at that conclusion.

Human rights are feministic ulturism. Like capitalism, liberalism and materialism human rights is a bastard child of the "enlightenment".

Human rights are whatever we as a civilization determine them to be. There is nothing "feminist" about reason compelling us to accept that certain liberties are required in order for us to lead humane and dignified lives.

Traditional values are traditional for a reason. They exist because of evolution.

The traditional values fascists like yourself advocate continue to exist because large segments of mankind are still too ignorant to adequately question them.

It does more then that. If one studies racial anthropology one would find a heirachy.

I have studied physical anthropology, and no such hierarchies emerge in the unbiased literature. Even in the antiquated texts, anthropologists merely cataloged anthropometric measurements.

Socialism can be for only one nation.

Socialism is incapable of being sustained in isolation.

I would like for my nation to have access to resources that suround it. Africa is full of ther most abundent natural resources yet the native people never use them.

And other nations may have an interest in accessing your countries resources. Now, what is the rational way to solve this dilemma? War (which could possibly end in the nuclear annihilation of the human species) or peaceful trade?

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."—J. B. S. Haldane

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."—Mikhail Bakunin

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Perverse sex spreads desiseas. AIDS is a gay disease, this is a politically inncorect fact. My theory on how it started was this one madman in Africa was having sex with monkeys and then he spead it to some of his partners. AID's affects gays far more per-capita. Gays have far more sexual partners. It is not even what they do in their private life. They have a degenerate "culture", have disgusting parades and they want tp adopt children which they will indoctrinate with their hedonistic liberal views. Gays also tend to be pedophiles and serial killers more. Gays have a form of psudo-"nationalism" called "queer "nationalism"", their loyaly it to gays over seas not to their countrymen.

People do have control over it. Humans are more then hedonistic animals Most gays are not "naturally" homosexual. Some people are but they are a minority. Even natural homosexuals should not behave like hedonistic animals and have some self control. More and more people are becoming gay by the day, it is trendy and people like to experiment. Women/girls experiment with it a great deal and for some reason many sick men like watching.

_________________

De Omnibus Dubitandum

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."-Friedrich Engels

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Perverse sex spreads desiseas. AIDS is a gay disease, this is a politically inncorect fact. My theory on how it started was this one madman in Africa was having sex with monkeys and then he spead it to some of his partners. AID's affects gays far more per-capita. Gays have far more sexual partners. It is not even what they do in their private life. They have a degenerate "culture", have disgusting parades and they want tp adopt children which they will indoctrinate with their hedonistic liberal views. Gays also tend to be pedophiles and serial killers more. Gays have a form of psudo-"nationalism" called "queer "nationalism"", their loyaly it to gays over seas not to their countrymen.

People do have control over it. Humans are more then hedonistic animals Most gays are not "naturally" homosexual. Some people are but they are a minority. Even natural homosexuals should not behave like hedonistic animals and have some self control. More and more people are becoming gay by the day, it is trendy and people like to experiment. Women/girls experiment with it a great deal and for some reason many sick men like watching.

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."—J. B. S. Haldane

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."—Mikhail Bakunin

admin, where did you find that video? that woman is almost insane as the op

_________________"The proletariat uses the State not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the State as such ceases to exist." - Frederick engels

A nation that has earned the right to be free from capitalism has most certainly earned the right of self-determination.

"Life is not an easy matter... You cannot live through it without falling into frustration and cynicism unless you have before you a great idea which raises you above personal misery, above weakness, above all kinds of perfidy and baseness." leon trotsky

Sadly I haven't see many(only Pantheon Rising) of the more rsocial-conservative people on this forum reply to this topic yet.

Celtiberian wrote:Being that this is a socialist forum, it should be obvious why our attention is primarily focused on capitalism and the injustice and immense damage it's responsible for. However, none of us have ever claimed that every observable problem in life is directly attributable to capitalism.

This is a socialist and a (supposedly) nationalist forum. I would expect people to talk about nationalism more. More and more liberals seem to be joining. Here Trotskyists and council communists seem to be ideologically closer to "left wing nationalism" then Third Positionists, NazBols and even Stalinists. These people just don't oppose the concept of nations or nations existing like the revlefters do.

On what basis, pray tell?

I mearly want the means of production to be nationalised. A movement that is obsessivly class centric is bound to be less powerful then one that acomodates all classes but has a disdain for the bourgeious. When a dictatorship is establish within a few decades in the bourgeious and even petite-bourgeious can be completly dismantled. If socialism is done to quickly it will cause unessisary bloodshed. Look what happened in the USSR, China and Cambodia. Cambodia went straight into communism and it turned out absolutly terrible. I want socialism to go a little faster then it does in social-democracies but a little slower then it did under Stalin.

In what way would their policy proposals result in humanity 'retuning to the stone age'?

They support theocratic ultra-reactionry(even though radical Muslims tend to actually have loose sexual morals) religious extremists into their nation and fight against "Islamophobia". They let in other forigners that are more crime prone and/or then the natives. The working and lower class becomes less white and (non-nationalistic)socialist movements have become completly corrupt. These movements have to apeal to black and brown mionorities for socialism as the native whites are more wealthy. They go on about how whites treated black and brown people poorly in the past. They claim that European nations must be multicultural. They have no tolerance for even civic nationalism or social patriotism. Almost no Marxist movements support social-patriotism. Their liberal policies of cultural-Marxism will cause white nations to lose their will. White people have become such wimps. If whites become 30% of the people in a European country I would not be surprised if their is a mass slaughter of white people. The whites here are already the victims of a slow creaping genocide. Plassmord(far murders) the death toll is 3000-4000 and rising fast.

I agree, but capitalism's remunerative norms are not related to work effort. The market apportions income on the basis of ownership (or lack thereof) of productive assets, luck (in workmates, tools, and the sector of the economy one works in), and one's genetic endowment.

I agree, but I am in favour of a workers driven National Socialism.

Any maintenance of private property is unjustifiable and will inevitably generate class tensions and instability (both political and economic). Those "socialists" who suggest otherwise are historically illiterate and don't possess a firm understanding of socialist theory.

Some private property is a right. One is entitled to his or her own money, home or clothing. There can be free trade amongst individuals as long as the means of production are nationalised.

In no way does preserving the petite bourgeoisie "liberate" the working class. Petite bourgeois enterprises are capitalist, and often more oppressive to labor than larger firms—due to the lower rate of profit generally exhibited in small businesses. Moreover, any ethical arguments you could possibly make in defense of the petite bourgeoisie are equally applicable to the bourgeoisie. Apparently you're unaware of the fact that the petite bourgeoisie are often among the most pugnacious of reactionaries. (It is in their class interest to be, after all.

"FascistCapitalist" from Iron March also made the argument that the petite-bourgeious are capitalist. This is true in most cases but most proletariats are lumperproletariats(this included social-democrat voters). The petite-bourgeious can be put on the right track and slowly evolve into a proletariat. Petite-bourgeious populism is a weapon to be used against the bourgeious elite. One must always buy from small and medium size buisnesses. This support for the petite-bourgeious support will die down once the socialist state is established. The petite-bourgeious can slowlt become a proletariat. The petite-bourgeious will support a party because of it's nationalist policies. I am sure you can agree that Third Positionism is far better then capitalism. I am personally to the left of third position but to the right of communists.

What makes you think that further taxing bourgeois estates would be politically viable? As the saying goes, "he who has the gold makes the rules."

The members at the top of the party will be fully commited to National SOCIALISM.

It wasn't anymore "left-wing" than American progressivism was; which is to say, it wasn't. The early fascists were moderate reformists, many of which (e.g., Mussolini) likely realized that their political programs had no chance at ever being fulfilled. They opportunistically supported a few social democratic proposals in a vain attempt to appeal to the working class.

Obviously it was not on the far-left but it was a revolutionary movement that sought change. The reason fascist regimes are not as socialist as they could have been was because of compramises with the bourgeious.

Do they? You shouldn't have any difficulty furnishing us with examples, in that case.

They are both social liberals. The global elite enforce perverse behaviour on the society. There tend to be many Marxist proffesors in American bourgeious univercities. They support drugs and every other kind of social vice. These people crusade for multiculturism and crusaded against ethnic Europeans. A modern liberal is a modern liberal.

Crime rates vary depending on the immigrant group. East Asian immigrants, for example, typically have an even lower crime rate than their Caucasian host populations do. As for "white racist oppression," that's obviously nonsense, but many countries have suffered as a result of colonialism and international capitalism, which causes (or at least exacerbates) Third World poverty and, in turn, acts as the major impetus for those peoples to migrate to Western states.

I acknoledge that NE Asians commit less crime then Europeans. They also have higher IQ's and larger cranial capacities. However they can thrive in their own countries. Ofcorse it is what is said by "white racist oppresors" is nonsense but the new left use that fallacy as an excuse to implament their policies. The thing is people believe this lie.

Are you suggesting that these so-called "liberal-socialist" Jews are intentionally focusing on the Caucasian bourgeoisie while absolving Jewish capitalists from any responsibility? Unless you can cite examples, I will take this claim as yet another figment of your overly active imagination.

There is a communist anti-white racist movement. In the past and even currently anti-white whites and Jews were bedfellows with the black panthers. They never say that their are not Jewish capitalists but they give Jews a victim statue like they do non-whites. Noel Ignativ, Tim Wise(1/2 jewish), Susan Sontag, most of the Frankfurt school ect. They always adress whites and never adress Jews or claim that Jews are disproportionately wealthy or are in positions of power. They like to "imply" that Jews are white yet also say that Jews are the victims of antisemtism and the holocaust. This gives Jews a victim status and makes them excempt from the "crimes of western civilisation".

It depends on how you define internationalism and socialism.

Technically one can have international capitalism and soft patriotism. I will coin the term "capital-patriotism". One can say that internationalism can fall under 2 catagories cosmopolitanism and patriotism that can be either social-patriotism or capital-patriotism. International socialism in almost all cases is cosmopolitan.

Cosmopolitan socialists do indeed, but that's due to their inability to understand economics, the national question, or the sociology of revolution. They also erroneously believe that the working class under socialism would democratically decide to maintain a policy of open borders—further highlighting how completely out of touch with reality such people are.

Yes, they are out of touch. The thing is these people make up the majority of the far-left. There is no way the far-left in the western world can ever adopt social-patriotism.

François Hollande is barely a social democrat. The reason immigrants generally vote for ostensibly "left-wing" political parties is because those parties are the ones which most frequently rhetorically defend liberal immigration policies and multiculturalism. However, the mainstream right-wing parties merely claim to oppose immigration (or favor stricter policies thereof) in order to secure votes from the working class; they don't actually intend on doing anything to obstruct the flow of cheap labor for capital. Voting demographics are predicated on rhetoric alone, as the differences between the bourgeois parties are entirely cosmetic.

I never called him a socialist. By left wing I am refering to psudo-democratic social-liberal parties no matter if they are communist or capitalist. These parties for the most part are obviously not sincere socialists. If sincere international socialist parties replaced them I can see them being like less corrupt versions of the current "socialist" parties and they will atempt to implamant socialism. They will still crusade for multiculturism. What you said about the mainstream right wing parties is correct. The parliment in a modern psudo-democratic nations behave like a soft dictatorship. It is not even really soft as it gives the illusion of rule of the people.

Where are these 'powerful' cosmopolitan socialist parties? (Only a reactionary could seriously consider the Socialist Party of France, or any other centre-left member of the Socialist International, to be anything other than bourgeois social democratic parties. Legitimate cosmopolitan socialists are simply revolutionaries who happen to believe that cosmopolitan social relations will characterize post-capitalist society.)

Obviously with this modern center-left parties for the most part for leaders are not commited to socialism but people think they are ligitimate socialist parties. What about groups such as "Party of the European Left" and European Anti-Capitalist Left. I do not deny these groups may be corrupt or are in bed with the powers that be but many love the far-left. Nationalists(which are always far-right acording to the mainstream) are ulways shunned.

Might is Right was obviously written as a parody of social Darwinist thought, and it's unclear who the author of that work was. As for London, he had espoused social Darwinist views prior to his involvement with socialism, and denounced the theory shortly thereafter. He explained his radical change of perspective by recalling the following transformative experience in his life,

I am pretty sure it is serious. There is dispute over who wrote it. Either way it is a great book.

Your arbitrary conception of when life begins is immaterial to the discussion. Frankly, I find it hilarious that someone so wedded to the notion of sterilizing and euthanizing people would take such a position on abortion.

The main reason I have a disdain for abortion is because it is used as a tool for the new cosmopolitian left. It is a dysgenics programs used to decrease the birthrates of the European as well as NE-Asian people.

Fascinating.. So you believe that criminals can be identified via physical defects and other such nonsense? You might as well be advocating phrenology. I recommend setting aside such antiquated and thoroughly discredited texts and instead consulting the contemporary works on the subject.

His scientific discovery does not work 100% of the time but on avarage people with a criminal nature have the traits have talked about. Many law abiding and naturally good people have many of the traits he talked about and many born criminals do not.

From wikipedia"(The born criminal)could be anatomically identified by such items as a sloping forehead, ears of unusual size, asymmetry of the face, prognathism, excessive length of arms, asymmetry of the cranium, and other "physical stigmata.""

Remember this was in Italy and Italy was almost 100% if not 100% white/European. I am sure you are a race realist. Certian races tend to have many of these traits eg prognathism, sloping forehead, ears of unusual size more so then other races.

I suppose that makes gonorrhea, chlamydia, and virtually every other STD "straight diseases." The origin of AIDS really doesn't matter at this point, nor does it make any sense to assign collective responsibility to the homosexuals community.

I did not come up with it. It has been around for quite a while. I see it as the most legitimate theory.

Shouldn't you be celebrating, then? I thought you considered them perverse degenerates; untermenschen.

I never said I have a problem with AIDS. Many religious people say that it is "god punnishment". I think AID's along with STD's are punnishment from providence and/or karma.

In what way is their subculture encroaching on your life?

When I watch a movie or TV show I occasionally see an anoying queer. So many sodomites are militant about their buggery in their public life and they undermind my proud European culture and heritage. I am a bit of a recluse so their subculture effects my private life little. I am a collectivist. I am concerned with the culture of my society much more then I am with my private life. I could live happily in isolation and never worry about abhorosexuals but I could also live happily in isolation and never worry about my nation being in the chains capitalism and the proletariat being under the oppression of wage slavery.

Yet another baseless assertion. The sort of homosexuals who adopt children tend to be far more monogamous and family-oriented than those heavily involved in the promiscuous homosexual subculture.

I have not been with a woman in over 2 years. I am hetrosexual but I abstain from sex as well as masterbating. To be honest in the past I was a big fan of porn(just pictures of naked women and solo stuff thankfully) and was addicted for a few months, glad that dark chapter of my life is over. My life has improved since then. If an ex-gay can cure him/herself then power to him/her.

God help us; it's spreading.. It couldn't possibly be that the demographics haven't altered at all, and it only appears as though they have because society has become more tolerant and LGBT people thus feel more comfortable expressing their sexuality, right?

Why do so many women experiment? Lesbianism is a fad. There are ex-gays. Look it up. George Linclon Rockwell admited there are(no were) ex-gays in his party. These people reformed and bettered themselves just like a recovering drug adict.

I defy you to show me a single example of a socialist who ever explicitly claimed that they seek to "bring all of humanity down to the lowest common denominator." People who don't accept that differences in innate ability exist obviously aren't concerned with breeding patterns, but that's a separate issue.

There is a close correlation between poverty and population growth. Socialism, however, will elevate the standard of living of the poor and generate classlessness, thereby equalizing fertility rates across the genetic spectrum and mitigating the problem. And, to the extent intelligence (or any other human attribute) is genetically influenced, gene therapies will surely be developed in the coming decades which will provide humanity with the means by which to distribute favorable genetic profiles at will (indeed, some bioethicists are convinced that we will witness this within our own lifetimes.) Your dysgenic alarmism is, quite simply, absurd.

I do not think any socialist has openely said that but the actions of many socialists are striving towards that goal. Most capitalists do not conciously exploit the workers but that does not excuse them from their crimes. Many socialists want all of humanity to mix into 1 race. Socialism will do that . My dysgenics alarm is by no means absurd. In 50 years I could see the avarage IQ of Europe being 85.

Let me guess, you hate Emma Goldman solely because she was Jewish?

Most of the traditional Left supported eugenics. In addition to Emma Goldman, other notable socialist and communist advocates of eugenics included Margaret Sanger, Eden and Cedar Paul, J. B. S. Haldane, Peter Kropotkin, H. J. Muller, and Leon Trotsky.

No, I hate her because she was a cosmopolitian anarcho-communist, who opposed marridge and supported free-love and sodomites. Sanger had many merits despite being associated with Goldman. Even Stalin did not acknoledge the differences of cognative abilities between the races. You forgot the man in my profile picture by the way.

Ignoring the indefensible nature of authoritarianism, how do you suppose that an unaccountable political party could ever be led exclusively by "incorruptible people"?

The party needs to be built by people that have been commited nationalists most of their lives. Supporters of the party will be promoted based on merit so only the most honourable will be at the top. The top ranking party members will monitor eachother. After a few decades when the people are indictrinated with the right ideas the state can become a democracy so the nation would not have to worry about the party becoming corrupt.

The authoritarian nature of the Chinese state apparatus is what enabled a relatively small number of bureaucrats to turn China into the capitalist cesspool it currently is. The history of 20th century state socialism sufficiently demonstrates why democracy is indispensable to the maintenance of socialism.

Dosen't democracy let capitalists have a voice?

Being that Marxism is a philosophical, sociological, and economic method by which to analyze capitalism, it's impossible for them to be "two sides of the same coin."

Marxism and capitalism are both materialistic doctrines. Both Marxists and capitalists support mass immigration. You can say "social-patriots don't" but there are more capitalists then Marxists that have patriotism. A few capitalists are willing to sacrifice(hardly much of a sacrifice as the means of production are not nationalised) some of their wealth so their nation can be better off. Still this is a step in the right direction just as social-patriotism with social-traditionalism is a step towards revolutionary nationalism and socialism.

With respect to the performance of state socialism, the Soviet Union industrialized at a rate so rapid that it defies historical precedent. In the process, it lifted millions of its citizens out of poverty (economic as well as cultural) and enabled the Soviet Union to become a hegemonic force in international relations.

Stalin killed 30 million of his people yet it is impressive how he industrialised the USSR. He is an exception to the rule, every other communist regime apart from Tito's Yugoslavia has been a faliure.

Condoms are an "abnormal abomination," but sterilization is perfectly reasonable in your opinion? I would appreciate if you could explain exactly how it is that you arrived at that conclusion.

I think covering ones genitals with plastic and them having sex is bizzare. It is not even propper sex, it is sex through a piece of plastic.

Socialism is incapable of being sustained in isolation.

Why? Communist dictatorships have been socialist until the death of the dictator. In an isolationist state socialism can be sustained. Saying otherwise is like saying that aliens in other gallaxy can't have their means of production nationalised if earth is without world socialism.

I don't find it disconcerting simply due to the fact that we were talking about being interested in various schools of religious and spiritual thought. Now, where TotalitarianSocialist here and I will disagree is when it comes to democracy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, working class liberation, etc etc.

I agree. Many use reactionry to describe people they disagree with. Liberal-communists/rev-lefters are definatly reactionry. If they implement their policies humanity will return to the stone age. Pol Pot can also be called reactionry. He wanted to return to primitive agarian communism.

There is nothing reactionary about agrarianism or even primitivism in my opinion. I disagree with primitivists, because I believe humanity can make technological process without sacrificing other values (even if the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution has shown us otherwise).

I am always in favour of some people being paid more.

As CeltIberian pointed out, people being remunerated more than others predates the capitalist mode of production.

The harder someone works the more money he/she deserves. I want a productive society in which people work hard.

Sure, but don't think you are going to be holding the whip, whipping workers back into their place to work harder. I believe people will naturally be more productive once they have control over their workplace and don't feel like lowly serfs on the shop floor. I want a society in which nobody has to perform degrading or bone breaking labor to the point that it breaks their spirit and they lose the will to live, learn, and participate in culture. Working hard means nothing if you are not raising humanity.

I can tolerate some private ownership but over time it can be nationalised. This is not pure communism.

Why should it not just be socialized?

For now I support petite-bourgeious buisness. Socialists should support the petite-bourgeious. The petite-bourgeious are needed in order to liberate the middle and working-class from the chains of capitalism.

Lolllll, I was recently fucked over by a petite-bourgeois contractor, so spare me this rubbish. Whether the owner is a complete reactionary prick or a genuinely nice guy who had to make tough decisions dictated to him by the "free market" petite-bourgeois businesses can be just as exploitative as larger firms.

The working and middle-classes should boycott the bourgeious capitalist buisnesses that exploit the planet, nature, humanity and the planet. I am in favour of class conflict against the bourgeious, not the proletariat against the petite-bourgeious.

The working class is the only revolutionary class capable of bringing about a change in society; it should be clear by now with how many petty-bourgeois individuals you have joining absurd movements like the Tea party.

Yes. As Mussolini said "History does not travel backwards". Many communists like Lenin cry "fascism is capitalism in decay" but it was originally quite a left-wing movement. It moved to the right in order to gain support in italy. To think of it every Fascist movement has moved to the right.

Lenin was quite right in his assertion. The whole basis of the fascist movement rose out of a reaction to the worker's movements. As a former fascist myself, I have to say it is quite a shit ideology and outside of NS Germany it was completely devoid of any spiritual character which had initially attracted me to it. Though the National Socialists were hardly interested in a genuine spiritual return to roots for the German people as much as they used the runes.

The liberal-capitalists and liberal-communists march hand in hand.

Disagreed, prove it.

On avarage (Ashkenazi)Jews do make much more money per-capita then gentiles. With other Jews they are not that wealthy. A dispreportionate amount of Jews are present in liberal-socialist movements. Liberal-socialists are quick to attack white gentiles for being welthy when Ashkenazi Jews are much more wealthy. Modern liberalism is an ideaology of complete hypocracy.

So what you're saying is, it isn't the intrinsic quality of the position that is exploitative or the content of the views espoused which makes them disagreeable, but rather the lineage of the person holding the position of espousing the views which makes them wrong? What is the difference between a bourgeois gentile and a bourgeois Jew? Nothing. Both religiously defend their social status and profits, and will see the poor and lower classes killed as well as the planet stripped of its beauty before they give up their position. Not the eternal Jew, but the Eternal Capitalist is the problem.

I do admit that some social Darwinists are foolish. They crusade for the "free-market" when it would be more beneficial for people to be united. I would recomend steralizing defective and idiotic people. I am in favour of a selevtive populism. The folk are being exploited by the rich as well as being exploited by the degenerate people at the bottom of the society.

And what is defective and idiotic in your opinion is probably very subjective. I am not being exploited by anyone below me seeing as how by very nature of their position they lack the means to exploit me.

_________________"Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same." ~ Alain de Benoist

"The main enemy is, on the economic level, capitalism and the market society, on the philosophical level, individualism, on the political front, universalism, on the social front the bourgeoisie, and on the geopolitical front, America." ~ Alain de Benoist

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Sadly I haven't see many(only Pantheon Rising) of the more rsocial-conservative people on this forum reply to this topic yet.

Social conservatives are few and far between on this forum, fortunately.

This is a socialist and a (supposedly) nationalist forum. I would expect people to talk about nationalism more.

The reason many of us don't discuss left-wing nationalism often is because we're not currently enduring conditions in which our cultures and self-determination are being threatened. If we had more Irish, Basque, Catalan, Asturian, Native American, Québécois, or Third World members, I suspect there would be many more threads pertaining to the national question.

What you consider nationalism, however, is what we regard as reactionary nationalism, and so we only address it in this sub-forum.

More and more liberals seem to be joining. Here Trotskyists and council communists seem to be ideologically closer to "left wing nationalism" then Third Positionists, NazBols and even Stalinists. These people just don't oppose the concept of nations or nations existing like the revlefters do.

Third Positionists are reactionaries, as are the majority of National Bolsheviks, and the nationalism they espouse bears nothing in common with our own. As for our newer members, I am pleased that the majority of them follow currents of socialist and communist thought which oppose authoritarianism, while nevertheless acknowledging the validity of left-wing nationalism.

I mearly want the means of production to be nationalised. A movement that is obsessivly class centric is bound to be less powerful then one that acomodates all classes but has a disdain for the bourgeious.

You clearly don't comprehend Marxian class analysis, which explains your ignorance regarding the manner by which revolutions occur. It is not in the class interest of the petite bourgeoisie to support revolutionary socialism. The only class which has an objective interest in achieving the socialization of the means of production are the proletariat—who represent the majority of any given industrialized society, incidentally. Of course we can expect certain petit-bourgeois, coordinator, and even a few capitalist supporters to emerge during the process of amassing a revolutionary movement, but they will be doing so for interests which violate those of their class and instead correspond to other values they hold (which is why they will be in the minority).

The fundamental question is: who are the agents of revolution? During the 1960s, the New Left began to think of students are representing such a class; while disillusioned former leftists and reactionaries contend that no such class exists, i.e., liberal democratic capitalism represents the "end of history." Marxism, however, reveals why the materialist dialectic is such that the working class are the inevitable agents of revolutionary transformation. Hal Draper explained the matter succinctly in the following passage,

"No other class has its hands so closely on the basic work without which the system grinds to a halt. Not a wheel can turn without them. No other class can precipitate a social crisis by the deliberate decision of its organized cadres as in a large-scale strike. When the working class goes into battle, all of society is embroiled, for all depends on it. Every time the working class stirs, the rest of society quivers."

When a dictatorship is establish within a few decades in the bourgeious and even petite-bourgeious can be completly dismantled.

A dictatorship is neither desirable nor necessary to accomplish such a task, as the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists demonstrated in 1936.

If socialism is done to quickly it will cause unessisary bloodshed. Look what happened in the USSR, China and Cambodia. Cambodia went straight into communism and it turned out absolutly terrible. I want socialism to go a little faster then it does in social-democracies but a little slower then it did under Stalin.

Every revolution is bound to be somewhat violent. What happened in Russia was a revolution occurred during a particularly tumultuous period in history. Immediately upon coming to power, the Bolsheviks were forced to deal with a hostile geopolitical environment, counterrevolutionary sabotage, and civil war; death and hardship was inevitable. Socialist China, on the other hand, suffered as a result of Mao Zedong's eccentric economic theories (e.g., having peasants manufacture pig iron in makeshift backyard furnaces) and the regime possessing insufficient technology by which to coordinate geographically dispersed political and economic activity. And Cambodia never "went straight into communism"—forcing citizens to leave urban areas and move to dictatorial agrarian labor camps, while simultaneously murdering anyone who dared to question the sanity of the Khmer Rouge, is the exact opposite of communism.

The Marxist theory of communism, as I'm constantly forced to explain to people, maintains that communism will emerge organically, as a result of socialist social relations developing the forces of production to the point wherein voluntary labor and consumption on the basis of need is socially and technologically viable. Any past regime which attempted to institute communism by fiat was violating the materialist foundation of Marxism, and instead indulged in idealism of the most contemptible and dangerous variety.

They support theocratic ultra-reactionry(even though radical Muslims tend to actually have loose sexual morals) religious extremists into their nation and fight against "Islamophobia".

The wisdom of their stance on immigration is certainly questionable, but Islamophobia is just as ridiculous and worthy of criticism.

They let in other forigners that are more crime prone and/or then the natives.

"They" do no such thing. Bourgeois governments (which are erroneously labeled "democratic" by some) determine who is or isn't allowed into the country, and the sole criteria they're concerned with is profitability.

The working and lower class becomes less white and (non-nationalistic)socialist movements have become completly corrupt. These movements have to apeal to black and brown mionorities for socialism as the native whites are more wealthy.

The racial constitution of the working class is, again, attributable to the immigration policies the bourgeoisie demand. Cosmopolitan socialist organizations are so small and insignificant that's it's useless even inquiring as to whether they are internally corrupt. The current crisis in revolutionary leadership is the result of pervasive false consciousness and the ideological hegemony cosmopolitan theories have gained in the Left over the past few decades.

Race and income is irrelevant. Caucasian people continue to constitute the majority of the working class throughout most of the global north, and income doesn't determine one's social class according to we revolutionary socialists—their relation to the means of production is what matters.

They go on about how whites treated black and brown people poorly in the past.

To say that Caucasians treated minority groups "poorly" in the past is an understatement.

They have no tolerance for even civic nationalism or social patriotism. Almost no Marxist movements support social-patriotism.

Social patriotism is the treacherous social democratic equivalent of civic nationalism. In other words, both of them reduce to an uncritical support of the state, which (especially within the context of capitalism) is objectively reactionary. Their intolerance for these theories are well justified.

Their liberal policies of cultural-Marxism will cause white nations to lose their will.

"Cultural Marxism" is a pernicious myth which various paleoconservative ideologues concocted following the Cold War in order to continue to feel relevant. Those who perpetuate such nonsense are either deliberately lying for political purposes or have simply been bamboozled by those who are—I suspect that you belong to the latter category.

White people have become such wimps. If whites become 30% of the people in a European country I would not be surprised if their is a mass slaughter of white people.

More asinine paranoia. Caucasians are nowhere near becoming "30% of the people in a European country," and genocides can only occur when there is a significant asymmetry in the distribution of force. Even under conditions of being overwhelmed demographically, the distribution of guns and political power alone would discourage most people from engaging in a "mass slaughter" of Europeans.

The whites here are already the victims of a slow creaping genocide. Plassmord(far murders) the death toll is 3000-4000 and rising fast.

I'm not trying to excuse the murders (I invariably sympathize with all innocent victims of homicide), but the Boers had no right to colonize South Africa in the first place. There is an abundance of animosity for the Boers due to the history of apartheid, so the most productive thing concerned Boers can do at this point is migrate back to Europe. No tribe of indigenous sub-Saharan Africans ever requested Europeans to grace them with their presence, and if they democratically decide to do so in the future, I will no longer have an objection.

I agree, but I am in favour of a workers driven National Socialism.

And what exactly is a "workers driven" form of National Socialism? Hitlerism (i.e., authoritarianism, imperialism, Nordicism, and militarism) featuring a nationalized economy?

Some private property is a right. One is entitled to his or her own money, home or clothing. There can be free trade amongst individuals as long as the means of production are nationalised.

We're essentially caught up in an issue of semantics on this point. Socialists consider items for active personal use (e.g., a car, home, clothing, computer, etc.) to be benign and unobjectionable, and we refer to them as "personal possessions." Property, on the other hand, is synonymous with private ownership of the means of production and natural resources, and is fundamentally exploitative.

This is true in most cases but most proletariats are lumperproletariats(this included social-democrat voters).

Incorrect. The proletariat and lumpenproletariat are separate social classes, so one cannot possess members of the other. The proletariat sell their labor-power to capitalists and are consequently deprived of the ability to appropriate the surplus value their labor creates. Lumpenproletarians, however, are voluntarily unemployed and/or engage in all manner of illegal activity.

The petite-bourgeious can be put on the right track and slowly evolve into a proletariat.

That has already been experimented with historically—e.g., when the Soviet Union attempted to work with the kulaks—and it fails spectacularly. The petite bourgeoisie will oppose the socialization of their property just as violently as the bourgeoisie, if not more so. Those is positions of authority, however minor, will resist any and all attempts which seek to deprive them of their privilege; and the economic privilege and workplace authority of the petite bourgeoisie is no different.

Petite-bourgeious populism is a weapon to be used against the bourgeious elite.

Petit-bourgeois populism extends no further than supporting antitrust legislation and expanding access to credit, i.e., it's reformist and market-based. The working class does not benefit from such policies, and they fail to move society anywhere nearer to socialism.

One must always buy from small and medium size buisnesses.

For what reason? Their business practices aren't any less alienating or exploitative to labor, and ethical consumerism is incapable of doing anything substantive to change the system regardless.

The petite-bourgeious will support a party because of it's nationalist policies.

Any party which doesn't threaten to dispossess them of their exploitative property, you mean.

I am sure you can agree that Third Positionism is far better then capitalism.

From an economic perspective, the problem with Third Positionism is that even if it were to hypothetically be implemented, it would be completely unstable. The class contradictions of capitalism would continue to exist, and their policies would obstruct the functionality of the market so much so that crises would soon emerge (I discuss this at length elsewhere). That's ignoring the various ethical objections I could level against Third Positionism, of course.

The members at the top of the party will be fully commited to National SOCIALISM.

And we're just to believe that these "members at the top of the party" will forever remain incorruptible, benevolent officials? Such naïveté would be excusable if history wasn't replete with counterexamples. Mikhail Bakunin expressed how wrongheaded this faith (shared by certain contemporaneous Marxists) is when he wrote, "[F]rom the heights of the state they begin to look down upon the whole common world of the workers. From that time on they represent not the people but themselves and their own claims to govern the people. Those who can doubt this know nothing at all about human nature" [Bakunin quoted in David McLellan's The Thought of Karl Marx: An Introduction, p. 247.].

Obviously it was not on the far-left but it was a revolutionary movement that sought change.

Once again, early fascism was reformist, and therefore sought minor changes.

The reason fascist regimes are not as socialist as they could have been was because of compramises with the bourgeious.

Even on a theoretical level, fascism cannot be regarded as "socialist." Fascist philosophy, exemplified in the idealist writings of Giovanni Gentile, explicitly attempted to refute the revolutionary implications of scientific socialist theory. It is simply an irrational doctrine of étatisme, based upon an array of empirically and philosophically bankrupt theories (e.g., social Darwinism and corporativism).

They are both social liberals.

That's extraneous to the question of whether or not "liberal-capitalists and liberal-communists march hand in hand." If you're claiming that some self-proclaimed communists occasionally participate in social movements (for gender equality, gay marriage, animal rights, or what have you) along with bourgeois liberals, that's obviously true but not especially provocative. In other words, it has nothing whatever to do with capitalism or communism per se. People regularly set aside certain of their ideological viewpoints in order to temporarily work with individuals who share other commitments in common with them—e.g., secular humanists and Christians volunteering at soup kitchens to feed the homeless.

The global elite enforce perverse behaviour on the society.

I advise that you avoid indulging in these ludicrous conspiracy theories. The so-called "global elite" are not a homogenous entity, and though they are indeed shaping public policy, their sole interest is in perpetuating their wealth and power.

I presume that the "perverse behavior" you're referring to is hypersexualization and homosexuality; the former of which can be explained by the simple fact that sex is a base human impulse which is notoriously easy for advertisers to capitalize on, and whatever programs exist to assist the latter group are encouraged primarily because certain segments of the ruling class benefit from a populace which isn't perpetually at war with itself.

There tend to be many Marxist proffesors in American bourgeious univercities. They support drugs and every other kind of social vice.

Being in academia myself, in addition to being well-versed in much of the current Marxist work being published, I can state with confidence that American universities are in no way dominated by "Marxist professors." The overwhelming majority of professors, in my experience, are slightly left-of-center social democrats, who intentionally go out of their way to criticize many essential Marxist concepts. Marxism is virtually absent in every economics department in this country (with the exception of the radical political economy taught by a few professors at the University of Massachusetts Amherst), and the majority of sociology and philosophy courses only introduce Marxism alongside a variety of other approaches.

As for supporting drugs, very few academicians support people literally using drugs. What some of them are opposed to is the costly and pointless "war on drugs," which the government has been engaged in for decades.

These people crusade for multiculturism and crusaded against ethnic Europeans. A modern liberal is a modern liberal.

Their support for multiculturalism is but a reflection of the Marxist axiom that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." (As I stated earlier, the bourgeoisie desire cheap foreign labor, and multiculturalism represents an attempt to legitimize this practice.)

They also have higher IQ's and larger cranial capacities.

Race differences in both cranial capacity and IQ aren't static; a clear and signification correlation between brain size and IQ hasn't been established (according to Richard Nisbett, "the brain-size difference between men and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites as by reported by Rushton and Jensen, yet men and women score the same, on average, on IQ tests."); and finally, James R. Flynn found that East Asian-Americans actually have a slightly lower mean IQ than do Caucasian-Americans, thereby rendering the myriad behavioral differences between the two groups (including incarceration rates) most likely culturally derived.

There is a communist anti-white racist movement.

Where?

In the past and even currently anti-white whites and Jews were bedfellows with the black panthers.

The Black Panthers (and their non-black supporters) opposed the very real systemic and individual racism which was targeted against the black community in the 1960s, and sought to empower their community. Unlike the contemporary so-called "New Black Panther Party," they were not anti-Caucasian racists. Had drugs not been intentionally brought into black neighborhoods to depoliticize them, a much needed social zeitgeist shift could have occurred in the black community.

They never say that their are not Jewish capitalists but they give Jews a victim statue like they do non-whites. Noel Ignativ, Tim Wise(1/2 jewish), Susan Sontag, most of the Frankfurt school ect.

The Jews have been a victimized group throughout history, so that's just stating the obvious. Moreover, every individual you just listed has harshly criticized Israel and the racist imperialism that state has been engaged in since its inception—which is a rather counterproductive tactic for 'Jewish supremacists' interested in maximizing their economic and political hegemony to follow, wouldn't you say? A Jewish chauvinist who seeks to advance his nation's interest to the detriment of other peoples would never embrace communism, as communism is a theory whereby everyone participates in creating and equally receives from the social product; it would be self-defeating.

They always adress whites and never adress Jews or claim that Jews are disproportionately wealthy or are in positions of power. They like to "imply" that Jews are white yet also say that Jews are the victims of antisemtism and the holocaust.

The two are not mutually exclusive. And singling out which specific Caucasian ethnicity most benefits from capitalism is unnecessary, childish, and does nothing to assist in abolishing capitalism; it merely opens to door for reactionary theories like "Aryanization" to start being considered by segments of the working class.

International socialism in almost all cases is cosmopolitan.

Absolutely not. That is a relatively recent development, attributable to Luxemburgist and Trotskyist positions on the national question gaining general acceptance on the Left. John Spargo (prior to his abandonment of radicalism), accurately explained the original socialist conception of internationalism as follows:

"Our guiding principle in all that concerns our relations to the people of other lands is internationalism. We are internationalists and anti-militarists.

But internationalism does not mean for us anti-nationalism. Nor has it anything whatever to do with the vague doctrine of world-organization, for which no accurately descriptive name exists, symbolized by the picturesque ceremony of a flag burning. This much exploited ceremonial was a crude attempt to symbolize a conception of a nationless world.

We repudiate the claim made by some that loyalty to this nation is inconsistent with true internationalism. Those who say that Socialism involves the view that the working class has no nation to call its own, that all nations are alike, that there is nothing to choose between a militarist autocracy and a democratic republic, do not preach Socialist Internationalism, but pernicious reactionary nonsense.

"Internationalism presupposes nationalism. It is the inter-relation of nations. The maintenance of national integrity and independence is an essential condition of internationalism. This principle has never in the past been seriously questioned in our movement. It has been the guiding principle of our policies in the Socialist International."Spargo quoted in Victor L. Berger: Hearings Before the Special Committee, Vol II, p. 627 (emphasis added).

There is no way the far-left in the western world can ever adopt social-patriotism.

No one should consider endorsing social-patriotism anyway, and the "far-left in the Western world" are currently as numerically insignificant as fascists are. When the proletarian revolution occurs, cosmopolitan socialists won't be in a position to unilaterally decide the manner by which social relations proceed, so I'm really not concerned about what they happen to believe.

What about groups such as "Party of the European Left" and European Anti-Capitalist Left.

Parties affiliated with the Party of the European Left have all of 16 seats in the European Parliament (out of a possible 736), and the European Anti-Capitalist Left has even fewer (if any). They're hardly powerful groups in Europe.

Nationalists(which are always far-right acording to the mainstream) are ulways shunned.

And rightfully so. To repeat: fascism is resorted to by the bourgeoisie only when the threat of proletarian revolution is acute.

I am pretty sure it is serious.

You're going against the general view of the historical community, but okay.

There is dispute over who wrote it. Either way it is a great book.

I beg to differ. It's a laughable screed which only immature adolescent males and complete sociopaths could admire.

The main reason I have a disdain for abortion is because it is used as a tool for the new cosmopolitian left. It is a dysgenics programs used to decrease the birthrates of the European as well as NE-Asian people.

What?

Eugenicists have always been the most enthusiastic supporters of abortion.

His scientific discovery does not work 100% of the time but on avarage people with a criminal nature have the traits have talked about. Many law abiding and naturally good people have many of the traits he talked about and many born criminals do not.

From wikipedia"(The born criminal)could be anatomically identified by such items as a sloping forehead, ears of unusual size, asymmetry of the face, prognathism, excessive length of arms, asymmetry of the cranium, and other "physical stigmata.""

Remember this was in Italy and Italy was almost 100% if not 100% white/European. I am sure you are a race realist. Certian races tend to have many of these traits eg prognathism, sloping forehead, ears of unusual size more so then other races.

So you're suggesting that the Italians with the physical features Cesare Lombroso erroneously claimed predicated one's propensity toward crime possessed non-European ancestry? If so, that's impossible to determine, and the notion that certain physical traits predispose some people to crime is inaccurate anyway. I recommend that you don't take the theories formulated by a man who wrote "criminals are more often left-handed than honest men, and lunatics are more sensitively left-sided" too seriously.

As for "race realism," I completely reject the hereditarian theories (e.g., genetic differences contributing to the majority of the racial IQ gaps) its proponents support, just as I reject biological determinism more generally. Race is really only meaningful insofar as sociology is concerned.

Gays are more STD prone due to their promiscuity.

I never suggested otherwise. I was referring to the origins of other STDs.

I think AID's along with STD's are punnishment from providence and/or karma.

Wow..

When I watch a movie or TV show I occasionally see an anoying queer.

You do realize that you have the ability to change the channel, right?

So many sodomites are militant about their buggery in their public life and they undermind my proud European culture and heritage.

How exactly does it "undermine" your "proud European culture and heritage"? They're completely unrelated.

I am a collectivist. I am concerned with the culture of my society much more then I am with my private life. I could live happily in isolation and never worry about abhorosexuals

Your "collectivist" inclinations compel you to improve your culture by way of intruding into other people's personal lives? Someone's bedroom habits do absolutely nothing to harm you or your culture, I assure you. Instead of worrying about such petty nonsense, why don't you focus on more constructive ways to improve your culture? Like helping people in need or becoming involved in anti-capitalist activism?

but I could also live happily in isolation and never worry about my nation being in the chains capitalism and the proletariat being under the oppression of wage slavery.

The difference (if you're a worker) is that you're directly affected by wage slavery, just as you're affected by the immense pollution capitalism is responsible for. The various ways in which consenting adults choose to fornicate ultimately do nothing to harm you or your community.

That remains to be proven. As far as child molestation is concerned, there are plenty of heterosexuals who engage in that sickening behavior as well, so homosexuals can no more be held responsible for the sexual predators who abuse children than heterosexuals. (YouDebate.com doesn't qualify as a source worthy of serious consideration either, by the way.)

I have not been with a woman in over 2 years. I am hetrosexual but I abstain from sex as well as masterbating.

Sexual abstinence is unrelated to the question over whether or not people are capable of changing their sexual orientation at will. Also, I don't think that such a radical suppression of your sexuality is healthy, but that's neither here nor there.

To be honest in the past I was a big fan of porn(just pictures of naked women and solo stuff thankfully) and was addicted for a few months, glad that dark chapter of my life is over. My life has improved since then.

It's admirable that you overcame your brief porn addiction, but I'm not quite sure how that's germane to the topic at hand (no pun intended).

If an ex-gay can cure him/herself then power to him/her.

But they can't, so it's unreasonable and oppressive to demand that they suppress their sexuality above what society subjectively decides to be appropriate public behavior for everyone (no fornicating in the streets, etc.).

Why do so many women experiment? Lesbianism is a fad.

It's a fad which sexist male capitalists started and are making millions of dollars off of. Aside from the social status (or money) women who partake in the act receive, there's no telling why some them find it easy to engage in—the notion that sexuality is strictly separated into 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' is likely just incorrect (see the Kinsey scale).

There are ex-gays. Look it up. George Linclon Rockwell admited there are(no were) ex-gays in his party. These people reformed and bettered themselves just like a recovering drug adict.

There are people who claim to be "former gays," just as there are blatantly gay people who claim to be straight. Case in point:

The truth is they are lying to themselves and to others. As for the "former gay" members of George Lincoln Rockwell's neo-Nazi freak show, they too were deceiving themselves and probably just joined the American Nazi Party for the utter pageantry of it all.

I do not think any socialist has openely said that but the actions of many socialists are striving towards that goal.

Such as..? Wanting to improve socioeconomic conditions for everyone, which has been empirically proven to enhance cognitive ability?

Many socialists want all of humanity to mix into 1 race.

I wouldn't say "many." At most, a few fringe individuals may.

Socialism will do that

No, it won't.

My dysgenics alarm is by no means absurd. In 50 years I could see the avarage IQ of Europe being 85.

It's absurd because your understanding of intelligence and demographic trends is sorely lacking, as is your inability to grasp the implications of gene therapy. For example, advocates of IQ theory are forced to concede that African-Americans today possess a higher mean IQ level than did Caucasian-Americans in 1950. IQ tests literally have to be recalibrated every 10 years due to what's known as the "Flynn effect," i.e., massive secular gains in IQ which, on average, amount to roughly 3 points per year for all racial groups.

Even Stalin did not acknoledge the differences of cognative abilities between the races.

He was correct not to.

You forgot the man in my profile picture by the way.

I intentionally omitted George Bernard Shaw because his "socialism" basically amounted to nothing more than authoritarian state socialism, which he believed could be achieved by way of Fabianism. Shaw was a witty character, but his politics were abhorrent. My list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, regardless.

Supporters of the party will be promoted based on merit so only the most honourable will be at the top. The top ranking party members will monitor eachother.

You don't understand how impossible it is to ensure that such an arrangement is faithfully followed once implemented. Human beings are a fallible species, and I wouldn't even trust myself to possess unaccountable authority, much less other men. (That's not to mention how egregiously unethical it is to bestow unto certain individuals the authority to make decisions which will affect the disenfranchised.)

Dosen't democracy let capitalists have a voice?

If you're referring to former capitalists, then yes. But they would represent a statistical minority and therefore wouldn't constitute a serious threat to socialism.

Marxism and capitalism are both materialistic doctrines.

Capitalism isn't a "doctrine," it's a mode of production. Now, if you're referring to the classical liberal philosophy which legitimized capitalism, then it was indeed materialist. However, Marxian materialism is entirely different from that espoused by bourgeois philosophers, but I don't want to diverge into a long philosophical discussion.

Both Marxists and capitalists support mass immigration.

Wrong. Marx and Engels never wrote in support of mass immigration; no hitherto existing socialist state ever implemented a policy of mass immigration; and I could cite several Marxist theorists who explicitly oppose(d) immigration.

there are more capitalists then Marxists that have patriotism.

In the words of the great Marxist theorist and Irish revolutionary socialist James Connolly,

"[T]he man who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm for [his motherland] and yet can pass unmoved through our streets and witness all the wrong and suffering, the shame and degradation wrought upon the people of [this nation], aye, wrought by [his compatriots] upon his [fellow countrymen and women], without burning to end it, is in my opinion, a fraud and a liar in his heart, no matter how he loves that combination of chemical elements which he is pleased to call [his motherland]."Ellis, Peter Berresford (ed.) James Connolly: Selected Writings, p. 38.

A few capitalists are willing to sacrifice(hardly much of a sacrifice as the means of production are not nationalised) some of their wealth so their nation can be better off.

Some capitalists, persuaded by the logic of Keynesian economics, are indeed willing to be taxed so as to assist in the circulation and further accumulation of capital. Very few of them are legitimately concerned with the nation itself being "better off"; what they are concerned with is whatever helps to reproduce them as a social class.

Stalin killed 30 million of his people yet it is impressive how he industrialised the USSR. He is an exception to the rule, every other communist regime apart from Tito's Yugoslavia has been a faliure.

I'll ignore the ridiculously inflated "30 million" casualties statistic you seemed to have borrowed from bourgeois propaganda pieces like The Black Book of Communism. By what measurement were these other socialist states 'failures,' in your opinion?

I think covering ones genitals with plastic and them having sex is bizzare. It is not even propper sex, it is sex through a piece of plastic.

And 50 years ago people would have thought it absurd that individuals could be having conversations like this over a computer. Cultures change, and mores along with them. Condoms are no more unusual than any other contraceptive, and serve a useful function.

Why?

Because they are susceptible to interference and sabotage from surrounding capitalist states, which undermines their internal development and stability.

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."—J. B. S. Haldane

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."—Mikhail Bakunin

Because the new societal structures established through their revolutionary acts in the past were revolutionary in terms of their progressiveness.

_________________

"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."